Allowed¶44

Union of India v. P.Gangan

Madras HC19 Feb 2026WP/33355/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Southern Railway pension dispute over counting of casual labourer/temporary-status service for pensionary benefits; Rule 31 Railway Service Pension Rules permits counting only 50% of such service; Rule 20 inapplicable; Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar (2017) 13 SCC 388 followed; coordinate Bench W.P.No.33866 of 2022 (26.11.2024) endorsed; CAT Madras Bench O.A.No.644 of 2018 dated 22.06.2023 quashed; writ petition under Article 226 allowed; retired Gangmate SSE/P.Way; Tribunal's direction to pay arrears with admissible interest set aside; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.644 of 2018 dated 22.06.2023 set aside; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶44

Union of India Vs P.Gangan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the service rendered by the first respondent as a Casual Labourer is to be counted in its entirety for calculating his pension and other retirement benefits.

¶27

Court's answer

The question whether service rendered as a Casual Labourer must be counted in its entirety for calculating pension and other retirement benefits is no longer res integra.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

As per Rule 31 of the Railway Service Pension Rules, a casual labourer granted temporary status, who is paid from contingencies and is not in regular employment of the Railways, is entitled to count only 50% of such temporary/casual service towards pensionary benefits; the entire period cannot be counted.

¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras, W.P. No. 33355 of 2023 (bench of C.V. Karthikeyan and K.Kumares Babu, JJ.; order made by K.Kumares Babu, J.; dated 19-02-2026): Union of India (General Manager, Southern Railway) and the Assistant Personnel Officer/Settlement, Chennai Division challenged, by writ petition under Article 226, the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.644 of 2018 dated 22.06.2023, which had directed them to count the first respondent's (retired Gangmate) entire period of service as Casual Labourer for pension, revise retirement benefits and pay consequential arrears with admissible interest. Following Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 388 (para 44), the Court held that grant of temporary status to a casual labourer is not akin to appointment against a post; such service falls under Rule 31, not Rule 20, of the Railway Service Pension Rules, so only 50% of casual/temporary service paid from contingencies is countable, such an employee not being in regular railway employment. Expressing complete agreement with the coordinate Bench decision in W.P.No.33866 of 2022 dated 26.11.2024, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Tribunal's order, directed no costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.

¶1

WP No. 33355 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

WP No. 33355 of 2023

¶7

Union Of India The General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town P.O., Chennai-600 003.

¶8

The Assistant Personnel Officer/Settlement Chennai Division, Southern Railway, Chennai-600 003.

¶9

..Petitioners

¶10

¶11

P.Gangan Retd, Gangmate, SSE/P.Way/ TRL/ MAS Division /S.Rly, Marudhuvallipuram Village, Manavur Post, Tiruthani Taluk, Trivellore District.

¶12

The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai.

¶13

..Respondents

¶14

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records from the file of the 2nd respondent in O.A.No. 644 of 2018 dated 22.6.2023 and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioners: Mr.C.Kulanthaivel

¶16

For Respondents: No appearance.

¶17

Page1 of 6

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

WP No. 33355 of 2023

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Order of the Court was made by K.Kumaresh Babu J.)

¶22

The writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari

¶23

calling for the records from the file of the 2nd respondent in O.A.No.644 of 2018 dated 22.06.2023 and quash the same.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶25

Inspite of notice on the respondent having been served, the respondent

¶26

was neither present nor entered his appearance through a counsel. The respondent was called absent.

¶27

The issue involved in the writ petition is with regard to the entitlement of the first respondent herein for counting the service rendered by him as Casual Labourer in its entirety for the purpose of calculating the pension and other retirement benefits.

¶28

The Tribunal had directed the petitioners to treat the entire period of service rendered by the first respondent as Casual Labourer for calculating the service for the purpose of pension and to revise the retirement benefits and pay all consequential arrears with admissible interest by re-issuing the revised Pension Pay Order.

¶29

Even according to the first respondent herein, in his claim before the Central Administrative Tribunal, only 50% of such services was reckoned as qualifying service. The issue as to whether the service rendered as Casual

¶30

Page2 of 6

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

WP No. 33355 of 2023

¶33

Labourer would have to be counted for calculating the pension and other retirement benefits is no longer res integra .

¶34

The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Rakesh Kumar and others (2017) 13 SCC 388) , has categorically held that the grant of temporary status as a casual labourer is not akin to appointment against a post and such contingency is not covered by Rule 20, and the same is expressly covered under Rule 31.

¶35

For better appreciation, the relevant paragraph 44 is extracted hereunder:

¶36

“44. As observed above, the grant of temporary status of casual labour is not akin to appointment against a post and such contingency is not covered by Rule 20 and the same is expressly covered by Rule 31 which provides for “half the service paid from contingencies shall be taken into account for calculating pensionary benefits on absorption in regular employment subject to certain conditions enumerated therein”. Thus Rule 31 is clearly applicable while computing the eligible services for calculating pensionary benefits on granting of temporary status.”

¶37

Noting the above, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that an employee, who had been a casual labourer and granted temporary status would be entitled

¶38

Page3 of 6

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

WP No. 33355 of 2023

¶41

to count only 50% of his service as a causal labourer, as per Rule 31 of the Railway Service Pension Rules.

¶42

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

¶43

the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.33866 of 2022 dated 26.11.2024 has also held that a temporary employee, receiving salary from contingencies cannot be construed as being in regular employment of the Railways and such employment would entitle the employee to count only 50% of the temporary service rendered, as per Rule 31 of the Railway Services Pension Rules, which we are also in complete agreement with.

¶44

In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as extracted supra, the writ petition stands allowed and the order impugned in O.A.No 644 of 2018 passed by the 2nd respondent dated 22.06.2023 stands set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶45

(C.V.K.,J.) (K.B.,J.) 19-02-2026

¶46

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶47

ssk

¶48

¶49