Patna High Court
The Union Of India and OrsversusNathuni
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
Casual railway workers are entitled to reckon only 50% of their service up to regularisation, and full service thereafter, for the purpose of pension calculation.
Summary
The Union of India and several railway officials filed a writ petition challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order that directed the calculation of pension for the deceased railway employee Ramashish Yadav. The petitioners argued that the CAT’s directive to count 100% of service from the temporary status period conflicted with Supreme Court precedent. The Court examined the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar (Civil Appeal No. 3938 of 2017), which held that casual workers may count only 50% of their service until they are regularised, after which full service is counted. Relying on that authority, the Court directed the petitioners to recompute the pensionary amount in accordance with the 50% rule and to pay the balance to the legal heirs within four weeks. The writ petition was disposed of with a modification of the impugned CAT order.
Issues considered
- Whether casual railway workers are entitled to reckon only 50% of their service before regularisation for pension calculation.
- Whether the CAT order directing 100% counting of service from the temporary status period is consistent with Supreme Court precedent.
- Whether the Railway Board may relax pension rules under Rule 107 of the 1993 Rules in deserving cases.
Subjects
- pension
- casual workers
- temporary status
- regularisation
- railway employees
- service calculation
- Supreme Court precedent
- Central Administrative Tribunal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13476 of 2016
======================================================
1. The Union of India through the General Manager, E.C. Railway, Hajipur,
Bihar.
2. The General Manager, Eastern Central Railway Zone, Hajipur, Bihar.
3. The Divisional Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Mugalsarai.
4. The Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, Mugalsarai.
5. The Assistant Engineer, Eastern Railway, Dehri-On-Sone, Rohtas at
Sasaram.
6. The Railway Inspector, Eastern Railway, Dehri-On-Sone, Rohtas at
Sasaram.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Ramashish Yadav, Son of late Nathuni, R/o village- Tineri, P.S.- Aanti,
District- Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Iti Suman, CGC
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhaneshwar Pd. Gupta, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
Date: 10-03-2026
The present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioners assailing the order dated 25.02.2016 passed by the
learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CAT’) in OA
No.050/00617/2015, whereby and whereunder the petitioners
herein have been directed to pass necessary order on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13476 of 2016 dt.10-03-2026
2/4
admissibility of pension to the original respondent in light of the
judgment rendered by the Ld. CAT, Patna Bench, Patna in similar
matters vide order dated 07.11.2014, as upheld by the Hon’ble
Patna High Court in a series of writ petitions i.e. CWJC No. 11695
of 2015 and other analogous cases vide judgment dated
18.08.2015, whereby and whereunder the Railways have been
directed to count 100% service towards pensionary benefits, if
otherwise admissible, from the period of temporary status till
regular absorption and thereafter till superannuation and to count
50% for the period of continued service rendered as casual labour
till counting of temporary status.
2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the parties have
jointly referred to a judgment dated 24.03.2017 rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs.
Rakesh Kumar and Others (Civil Appeal No. 3938 of 2017 and
other analogous cases), paragraph Nos.55 and 56, are reproduced
herein below:-
“55. In view of foregoing discussion, we hold :
i) the casual worker after obtaining temporary status
is entitled to reckon 50% of his services till he is
regularised on a regular/temporary post for the
purposes of calculation of pension.
ii) the casual worker before obtaining the temporary
status is also entitled to reckon 50% of casual service
for purposes of pension.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13476 of 2016 dt.10-03-2026
3/4
iii) Those casual workers who are appointed to any
post either substantively or in officiating or in
temporary capacity are entitled to reckon the entire
period from date of taking charge to such post as per
Rule 20 of Rules, 1993.
iv) It is open to Pension Sanctioning Authority to
recommend for relaxation in deserving case to the
Railway Board for dispensing with or relaxing
requirement of any rule with regard to those casual
workers who have been subsequently absorbed
against the post and do not fulfill the requirement of
existing rule for grant of pension, in deserving cases.
On a request made in writing, the Pension
Sanctioning Authority shall consider as to whether
any particular case deserves to be considered for
recommendation for relaxation under Rule 107 of
Rules, 1993.
56. In result, all the appeals are allowed. The
impugned judgments of Delhi High Court are set
aside. The writ petitions filed by the appellants are
allowed, the judgments of Central Administrative
Tribunal are set aside and the Original Applications
filed by the respondents are disposed of in terms of
what we have held in para 55 as above.”
3. Thus, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the casual workers after obtaining temporary status
as also before obtaining the temporary status are entitled to reckon
50% of their services till they are regularized on a regular/
temporary post for the purposes of calculation of pension.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent
has not disputed the fact that as per the aforesaid judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rakesh
Kumar & Ors. (supra), for the purposes of computing the period
Patna High Court CWJC No.13476 of 2016 dt.10-03-2026
4/4
of service of a retired employee for calculation of pension, the
same has to be reckoned only to the extent of 50% of his services
till he was regularized.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, we direct the petitioners to re-workout the pensionary claims
of the original respondent as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in para No. 55 of the judgment rendered in the case of
Rakesh Kumar & Ors. (supra), within a period of four weeks
from today and pay the balance amount to the legal heirs of the
deceased employee within a period of four weeks, thereafter.
6. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed
of with the aforesaid modification in the impugned order dated
25.02.2016, passed by the Ld. CAT in OA No.050/00617/2015.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
GAURAV S./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 17.03.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…