Holding

The petitioner is entitled to permanent status only from the date of reinstatement, not retroactively from the original appointment, although his temporary service qualifies for pension benefits.

Summary

Ram Lal was appointed on an ad‑hoc basis as a casual railway worker in 1962 and was illegally terminated in 1964. A civil court set aside the termination and reinstated him in 1971, granting regular status effective from September 1971 after he passed a medical examination. He claimed that he should be treated as a regular employee from his original appointment date and be entitled to all consequent service benefits. The Supreme Court examined Rule 3511(C) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, which requires a medical board selection for regular appointment, and held that because the petitioner had not undergone the required medical test at the time of his original appointment, he could not be deemed a regular employee from that date. The Court affirmed the Tribunal’s order that his regular status began only from the reinstatement date, though his temporary service counted as qualifying service for pension benefits. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether an ad‑hoc railway employee reinstated after an illegal termination can be deemed to have been a regular employee from the date of his original appointment under Rule 3511(C) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual.

Legislation cited

Indian Railway Establishment Manuals. Rule 3511(C)

Subjects

service lawrailwayad‑hoc appointmentregularisationterminationreinstatementpension benefitsIndian Railway Establishment ManualRule 3511(C)

Judgment

RAMLAL A
v.
.... UNION OF INDIA

> AUGUST 21, 1996

[K. .RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B

Indian Railway Establishment Manual: Rule35ll(c).

Se1vice Law-Railways-Petitioner appointed on ad hoc basis as a
casual worker-Te1111ination-Termination order challenged successful-
ly-Reinstatement-Claim for status of regular employee with effect from the
c
date of initial appointment-Tribwial holding that unless the petitioner had
undergone the medical test and was properly selected in order to be appointed
on regular basis, he has no 1ight to claim service benefits of a regular
employe~Appeal-Held there was 110 illegality in the order passed by
T!ibunal-Petitioner is entitled to pennanent status after reinstatement. D
. Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Shanna v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR
(1962) SC 1334, held inapplicable.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 15896 of 1996. E ·
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.8.93 of Central Appellate
Tribunal, Calcutta in O.A. No. 747 of 1987.

K. B. Sinha, Anil K. Jha, · Rajeev K. Sinha and T. Ray, for the
Petitioner. F

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

This special leave petition is filed against the order dated August 4,
1983 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench made in O.A.
No. 747/1987. The admitted position is that the petitioner was appointed G
on ad hoc basis as a casual worker (khalasi) on August 1, 1962. He was
terminated by an oral order on September 18, 1964. He challenged his
termination by filing title suit No. 34/68/117 of 1967 in the Court of Learned
Munsif, Asansol which was decreed; the order of termination was declared
as illegal, void and inoperative and it came to be confirmed in appeal. H
27
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Thereafter the petitioner was reinstated and the consequential benefits
were given. He was, admittedly, reinstated on July 14, 1971. He is claiming
the status of regular employee w.e.f. the initial date of his appointment on
par with other candidates. It is not in dispute that as per Rule 3511 {C) of
Indian Railway Establishment Manual, unless the candidate is sent before
the Medical Board and selected by the regular selected committee, he has
B
no right tq the post. Obviously since the report of the medical examination
was not found on record, he was asked to appear for medical examination
in 1987 which medical test he had undergone. Subsequently, he came to be
appointed on regular basis. But regular status was given to him w.e.f.
September 14, 1971.
c
He filed the OA contending that he must be deemed to have been
regularly appointed from the initial date of his appointment and that,
therefore, he is entitled to all the consequential benefits. In the impugned
· order, the Tribunal was right in observing that unless the petitioner had
D undergone the medical test and was properly selected in order to be
appointed on regular basis, he has no right to claim service benefits of a
regular employee. The appointing authority has put him back to the regular
status w.e.f. the date of his reinstatement in September 1971. It is sought
to be contended that once he was appointed on regular basis, in view of
E the decision of the civil Court it must be deemed that he should have been
continued in service from the beginning. We find no force in the conten-
tion. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court
in Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Shanna v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR {1962)
'sc 1334 at 1337, paragraph 10. The said ratio has no application to the •
facts in this case. In that case the incumbent was a regular employee and
F the dismissal from service was declared invalid. He was deemed to have
been continued in service and, therefore, he was entitled to the consequen-
tial benefits from his initial appointment.

At the time of termination, the petitioner was ad hoc employee with
G temporary status and he was put back into the status on his reinstatement. r'

When he was medically examined he was appointed from the date of his
reinstatement. In fact, they have done justice to him. Had it been a case of
regular appointment, he could not be put back into the status from the date
of his initial appointment according to the rules. He is entitled to the
H permanent status after reinstatement. That status was given to him. Ac-
RAM LAL v. U.0.1. 29

cordingly, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. A
However, by operation of Rule 3511(C) of IREM, the petitioner is entitled
to the pensionary benefits treating the temporary service as a qualifying
service for pensionary benefits.

With these observation, the petition is dismissed.
B
T.N.A. Petition dismissed.