Union Of India & Another vs Shri Nivrutti Yadav
2017 Latest Caselaw 7688 Bom

                                         1                           wp2872.02.odt


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR


                       WRIT PETITION NO. 2872 OF 2002


              1.  Union of India,
                   Through General Manager,
                   Central Railway,
                   Mumbai.

              2.  Divisional Railway Manager,
                   Central Railway,
                   Nagpur.                            ...             PETITIONERS

                               .. Versus ..

                   Nivruti Yadav,
                   Retired Manson of P.W.I Hinganghat,
                   Tah. Deulgaon (Raja),
                   Dist : Buldhana,
                   presently residing near house of 
                   Parate Bai, Kanhya Nagar,
                   Post Jalna, Tah. & Dist. Jalana.     ...        RESPONDENT


           =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                  Dr. R.S. Sundaram, Advocate for Petitioners.
                 Mr. G.N. Khanzode, Advocate for Respondent.
           =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

                           
                                      CORAM :  R.K. DESHPANDE & 
                                                      MANISH PITALE, JJ.

DATED : September 28, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER R.K. DESHPANDE, J.)

The Central Administrative Tribunal has partly

2 wp2872.02.odt

allowed the Original Application No.15/1997, directing the

counting of past services rendered by the respondent from

1953 to 1970 for the purpose of grant of pensionary

benefits. This judgment of Tribunal delivered on

31.01.2002, is the subject matter of the challenge in this

petition.

2. It is not in dispute that 50% of the services

rendered by casual labourer prior to his regularization

needs to be counted towards qualifying service for pension.

It is not in dispute that the respondent was regularized in

the year 1979, and according to the petitioners, he was

working as casual labourer since 1970. According to the

petitioners, 50% past service rendered by the respondent

from 1970 to 1979 as a casual labourer has been taken into

consideration for pensionary benefits, and the Tribunal

therefore, has committed an error in directing the

petitioners to consider the services rendered by the

respondent from 1953 to 1979.

3. We have gone through the judgment delivered

by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Though it was the

contention raised that the respondent has been working as

3 wp2872.02.odt

a casual labourer from 1953 onwards till 1979, there is no

authenticated material placed on record to substantiate this

contention. On the contrary, the service record at

Annexure I to the petition, which is duly signed by the

respondent, clearly indicate that the service of the

respondent commenced as a casual labourer from

19.09.1970. There is no finding recorded by the Tribunal

that the respondent has worked as a casual labourer from

1953 to 1970. In view of this, the judgment and order

passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and it will have

to be quashed and set aside and Original Application

No.15/1997 has to be dismissed.

4. In the result, this petition is allowed. The

judgment and order dated 31.01.2002 passed by the

Central Administrative Tribunal in the Original Application

No.15/1997, is hereby quashed and set aside. The original

application is dismissed. No order as to costs.

                                   JUDGE                            JUDGE

                      waghmare