HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NOs.5527, 5526 & 28569 of 2023 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Ms.Divya Datla, learned counsel for the petitioners – Union of India and its authorities and Sri B.Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondents. 2. Respondents filed OA/020/1010/2015, OA/020/1009/2015 & OA/020/1008/2015 for direction to the present petitioners to count his Casual Labour service for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. The applicants were appointed in Railways as Casual Labour initially and their service was regularised later. They were retired from service. The present petitioners only considered the regular service and not the Casual Labour service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The Tribunal allowed the OAs with direction to the petitioners to grant pensionary benefits by taking into account 50% of Casual Labour service of the applicants. The said order was passed after considering the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rakesh Kumar1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter is covered by the judgment of Rakesh Kumar (supra). 1 (2017) 13 SCC 388 2 4. Learned counsel for the respondents further placed reliance in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Munshi Ram2, in which also the Hon’ble Apex Court considering the Rakesh Kumar (supra) and placing reliance thereon, further observed that the employees working under the same employer – Railway Board, working in different Zones/Divisions were required to be treated similarly and equally and were entitled to similar benefits. 5. Para 55 in Rakesh Kumar (supra) reads as under: “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. 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.” 2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1493 3 6. Para Nos.6 to 8 of Munshi Ram (supra) read as under: 6. From the aforesaid, it can be seen that with respect to Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Western Railway, Eastern Railway, Southern Railway and South-Eastern Railway, they are held to be entitled to 50% of the services rendered prior to their regularization to be counted for pensionary benefits and all those Commission Vendors/bearers are granted such benefits. Now the dispute is with respect to Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway. 7. It cannot be disputed that employees working in different divisions/zones in the Railways are under the very same employer – Railway Board which is under the Ministry of Railways. There are 16 Zones and 68 Divisions in the Railways. Therefore, the employees working under the same employer – Railway Board working in different Zones/Divisions are required to be treated similarly and equally and are entitled to similar benefits and are entitled to the same treatment. As rightly submitted on behalf of the respondents, there cannot be any discrimination inter se. Under the circumstances, on the ground of parity, the Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway are entitled to the same benefits which are held to be entitled to all the similarly situated Commission Vendors/Bearers working under different Zones/Divisions. There cannot be different criteria/parameters with respect to similarly situated employees – Commission Vendors/bearers working in different Zones/Divisions, but working under the same employer. 8. The Railways/UOI/Railway Board cannot be permitted to repeat the same arguments which were raised before different Tribunals, High Courts and also before this Court. Under the circumstances, the respondents – Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway shall also be entitled to the same benefits which the other Commission Vendors/bearers working in different Zones/Divisions are 4 held to be entitled to. There cannot be discrimination among the similarly situated Commission Vendors/bearers. To deny similar benefits would tantamount to discrimination and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” 7. In view thereof, the respondents are entitled to the same treatment, which has already been granted by the Tribunal. 8. We do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal. 9. The Writ Petitions are dismissed. No orders as to cost. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J ______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN,J Dated: 27.01.2025 AG 5 44 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NOs.5527, 5526 & 28569 of 2023 Dated: 27.01.2025 AG