ups_00132 — Applicants herein who were Commission Bearers in the Commercial Catering Department with effect from 1-3-1960 were absorbed in Railways on 10-2-1994 and 2-2-1994 and retired on 31-10-2003 and 30-6-2003 respectively. At the time of their retirement, their service was less than 10 years because of which they were declared as non-pensioners. Hence this OA is filed for granting them pension taking into account their casual / temporary service and took note of the case of Inder Pal Yadav and others v

UPS

Applicants herein who were Commission Bearers in the Commercial Catering Department with effect from 1-3-1960 were absorbed in Railways on 10-2-1994 and 2-2-1994 and retired on 31-10-2003 and 30-6-2003 respectively. At the time of their retirement, their service was less than 10 years because of which they were declared as non-pensioners. Hence this OA is filed for granting them pension taking into account their casual / temporary service and took note of the case of Inder Pal Yadav and others v. Union of India and others [1985 SCC (L&S) 526], wherein the Apex Court held that similarly situated person is to be given similar treatment. Already in the case of O.A. No. 545/1999 and O.A. No. 109/2003, Applicants therein similarly situated as Applicants herein got pension even though their service in Railways was less than 10 years. Hence the Applicants herein also are entitled to get pension counting their service before absorption in Railways to make good 10 years to grant them pension — This chunk discusses two applicants who were initially Commission Bearers in the Commercial Catering Department of Eastern Railway in 1960, later absorbed into Railways in 1994, and retired in 2003 w... — Facts: There are two Applicants in this OA. They were initially appointed as Commission Bearers in the Commercial Catering Department of Eastern Railway in 1960. Based on the circular of the Railway Board, dated 13-12-1976, Commission Bearer / Vendors are to be absorbed in Railway service progressively. Applicants were screened and absorbed in Railways on 14-1-1994. They retired from service on 31-10-2003 and 30-6-2003. But they were declared ineligible for pension as their regular service in Railways were less than 10 years to get pension. Hence they approached the Tribunal to grant them pension even though their service is less than 10 years as was granted to similarly situated persons in O.A. No. 545 of 1999 [Narayan Ram and others v. UOI and others]. Similar cases had been dealt with earlier. Hence the final decision of the CAT, if noted that will be sufficient. Applicants herein actually absorbed in Railways in 1994 and retired on 31-10-2003 and 30-6-2003 without completing 10 years of service. They were denied pension as per CPO's Serial Circular No. 13/91 as they have not completed 10 years of regular service. In O.A. No. 545/1999, the Applicants therein were initially appointed as Commission Bearers in 1958, 1959 and 1960. They were absorbed in Railways and retired before completion of 10 years of service. They were granted pension. Similarly the Applicants herein also absorbed in Railways in 1993-94 and retired in 1998 / 2000 before completion of 10 years of regular service. In the O.A. No. 545/1999 (supra), the issues raised namely, payment of pension if the retired persons had not completed 10 years of service because of attaining the age-limit of 58/60 years. The Tribunal held that in case the service is less than 10 years, their service as commission basis may be added to the extent of making good 10 years of service. In the case of Inder Pal Yadav and others v. Union of India and others [1985 SCC (L&S) 526], the Apex Court held that "those who could not come to the Court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those rushed in here. If they are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment, if not anyone else at the hands of this Court". In the case of K.C. Sharma and others v. Union of India [1990 SCC (L&S) 226], the Apex Court held that "delay in filing the application should be condoned if they are similarly situated in cases of Applicants whose cases were already disposed of". Based on the above positions, the Tribunal held :

UPS

Applicants herein who were Commission Bearers in the Commercial Catering Department with effect from 1-3-1960 were absorbed in Railways on 10-2-1994 and 2-2-1994 and retired on 31-10-2003 and 30-6-2003 respectively. At the time of their retirement, their service was less than 10 years because of which they were declared as non-pensioners. Hence this OA is filed for granting them pension taking into account their casual / temporary service and took note of the case of Inder Pal Yadav and others v. Union of India and others [1985 SCC (L&S) 526], wherein the Apex Court held that similarly situated person is to be given similar treatment. Already in the case of O.A. No. 545/1999 and O.A. No. 109/2003, Applicants therein similarly situated as Applicants herein got pension even though their service in Railways was less than 10 years. Hence the Applicants herein also are entitled to get pension counting their service before absorption in Railways to make good 10 years to grant them pension — This chunk discusses two applicants who were initially Commission Bearers in the Commercial Catering Department of Eastern Railway in 1960, later absorbed into Railways in 1994, and retired in 2003 w... — Facts: There are two Applicants in this OA. They were initially appointed as Commission Bearers in the Commercial Catering Department of Eastern Railway in 1960. Based on the circular of the Railway Board, dated 13-12-1976, Commission Bearer / Vendors are to be absorbed in Railway service progressively. Applicants were screened and absorbed in Railways on 14-1-1994. They retired from service on 31-10-2003 and 30-6-2003. But they were declared ineligible for pension as their regular service in Railways were less than 10 years to get pension. Hence they approached the Tribunal to grant them pension even though their service is less than 10 years as was granted to similarly situated persons in O.A. No. 545 of 1999 [Narayan Ram and others v. UOI and others]. Similar cases had been dealt with earlier. Hence the final decision of the CAT, if noted that will be sufficient. Applicants herein actually absorbed in Railways in 1994 and retired on 31-10-2003 and 30-6-2003 without completing 10 years of service. They were denied pension as per CPO's Serial Circular No. 13/91 as they have not completed 10 years of regular service. In O.A. No. 545/1999, the Applicants therein were initially appointed as Commission Bearers in 1958, 1959 and 1960. They were absorbed in Railways and retired before completion of 10 years of service. They were granted pension. Similarly the Applicants herein also absorbed in Railways in 1993-94 and retired in 1998 / 2000 before completion of 10 years of regular service. In the O.A. No. 545/1999 (supra), the issues raised namely, payment of pension if the retired persons had not completed 10 years of service because of attaining the age-limit of 58/60 years. The Tribunal held that in case the service is less than 10 years, their service as commission basis may be added to the extent of making good 10 years of service. In the case of Inder Pal Yadav and others v. Union of India and others [1985 SCC (L&S) 526], the Apex Court held that "those who could not come to the Court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those rushed in here. If they are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment, if not anyone else at the hands of this Court". In the case of K.C. Sharma and others v. Union of India [1990 SCC (L&S) 226], the Apex Court held that "delay in filing the application should be condoned if they are similarly situated in cases of Applicants whose cases were already disposed of". Based on the above positions, the Tribunal held :

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text