ups_00135 — Employees who worked as Loco Pilots / Guards in Railways and de-categorized and absorbed in alternate post, in the present case as Crew Controllers after de-categorization, they are entitled to invoke the option under Rule 17 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. Rule 17 talks of pensionary benefits to staff declared unfit for the post, he held before de-categorization. As per that rule, the gratuity or pension would normally be granted with reference to total service in both spells tak

UPS

Employees who worked as Loco Pilots / Guards in Railways and de-categorized and absorbed in alternate post, in the present case as Crew Controllers after de-categorization, they are entitled to invoke the option under Rule 17 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. Rule 17 talks of pensionary benefits to staff declared unfit for the post, he held before de-categorization. As per that rule, the gratuity or pension would normally be granted with reference to total service in both spells taken together. The sum of gratuity or pension of such a de-categorized employee invalidated out of service instead of being retained in an alternative appointment at the end of first spell will be granted. Retirement gratuity or pension will be granted for the second spell of service rendered in the alternative appointment. The proviso spells of the total service both before de-categorizing the employee and later absorbed in alternative post will not exceed 33 years for grant of gratuity or pension — This chunk is a part of a case summary discussing the entitlement of two employees, who were initially Loco Pilots/Guards in the Railways but were de-categorized due to medical reasons and later abso... — Facts: There are two Applicants in this OA who were medically de-categorized and filed this OA together and the Tribunal permitted them to do so by allowing M.A. No. 180/00331/2014. Initially, they are kept on supernumerary post and thereafter posted as Crew Controllers in Southern Railway, Palghat Division. Applicants contend that by virtue of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD Act, 1995), claims to get all benefits of the post from which they were medically de-categorized. As per their version, 30% of Running Allowance before medical de-categorization is to be taken into account and as per provisions of Railway Pension Rules, they are entitled to 55% of pay element for reckoning their emoluments for pensionary benefits as per Rule 49
(b) of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. Hence, they filed this OA for service benefits including retiral benefits of Loco Pilots / Guards on supernumerary post or that of Loco Pilots drafted as Crew Controllers, whichever is more beneficial to them. The Respondents in their reply affidavit resist the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are posted now in stationary posts and hence they are not entitled for the relief and the usual formula will be applied for fixing their pay and retirement benefits. A counter to the reply is also filed justifying their stands by the Applicants. The point for consideration in this OA is, whether the Applicants, who were members of the running staff, are entitled to reckon their Running Allowance for the purpose of their pensionary benefits after having been given alternative employment as Crew Controller℃ The Applicants contend that they are entitled for protection of their pay and service benefits which were being enjoyed by them at the time of acquiring disability during their service. For clarity, Section 47 of PWD Act, 1995 is reproduced. The Tribunal recollected the request of the Applicants and also the history of keeping the medically de-categorized employees in other suitable posts according to his/their disability. In the present case, the Applicants are de-categorized while in service as Loco Pilots / Guards and kept in supernumerary post with effect from the date of de-categorization and subsequently absorbed as Crew Controllers. "Their absorption in alternative post as per Section 1 of Section 47 of PWD Act, 1995 makes it clear that the employer is obliged to keep the employee who acquired disability on a supernumerary post only till a suitable post is available. Both the Applicants accepted the posting as Crew Controllers without any demur. A suitable post by way of alternative employment has to be treated as a post which carries fresh responsibility and pay scales. However, by virtue of first proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 47 of the PWD Act, 1995, such employee is still entitled to protection from reduction in rank or pay and other service benefits". It was held by Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others v. B. Banerjee [ 2013 (10) SCC 265], that Running Allowance / Allowance in Lieu of Kilometrage (ALK) are applicable only to running staff, not to Crew Controllers who cannot be treated as running staff. Paras. 12 and 13 of that judgment is reproduced for clarity.

UPS

Employees who worked as Loco Pilots / Guards in Railways and de-categorized and absorbed in alternate post, in the present case as Crew Controllers after de-categorization, they are entitled to invoke the option under Rule 17 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. Rule 17 talks of pensionary benefits to staff declared unfit for the post, he held before de-categorization. As per that rule, the gratuity or pension would normally be granted with reference to total service in both spells taken together. The sum of gratuity or pension of such a de-categorized employee invalidated out of service instead of being retained in an alternative appointment at the end of first spell will be granted. Retirement gratuity or pension will be granted for the second spell of service rendered in the alternative appointment. The proviso spells of the total service both before de-categorizing the employee and later absorbed in alternative post will not exceed 33 years for grant of gratuity or pension — This chunk is a part of a case summary discussing the entitlement of two employees, who were initially Loco Pilots/Guards in the Railways but were de-categorized due to medical reasons and later abso... — Facts: There are two Applicants in this OA who were medically de-categorized and filed this OA together and the Tribunal permitted them to do so by allowing M.A. No. 180/00331/2014. Initially, they are kept on supernumerary post and thereafter posted as Crew Controllers in Southern Railway, Palghat Division. Applicants contend that by virtue of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD Act, 1995), claims to get all benefits of the post from which they were medically de-categorized. As per their version, 30% of Running Allowance before medical de-categorization is to be taken into account and as per provisions of Railway Pension Rules, they are entitled to 55% of pay element for reckoning their emoluments for pensionary benefits as per Rule 49
(b) of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. Hence, they filed this OA for service benefits including retiral benefits of Loco Pilots / Guards on supernumerary post or that of Loco Pilots drafted as Crew Controllers, whichever is more beneficial to them. The Respondents in their reply affidavit resist the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are posted now in stationary posts and hence they are not entitled for the relief and the usual formula will be applied for fixing their pay and retirement benefits. A counter to the reply is also filed justifying their stands by the Applicants. The point for consideration in this OA is, whether the Applicants, who were members of the running staff, are entitled to reckon their Running Allowance for the purpose of their pensionary benefits after having been given alternative employment as Crew Controller℃ The Applicants contend that they are entitled for protection of their pay and service benefits which were being enjoyed by them at the time of acquiring disability during their service. For clarity, Section 47 of PWD Act, 1995 is reproduced. The Tribunal recollected the request of the Applicants and also the history of keeping the medically de-categorized employees in other suitable posts according to his/their disability. In the present case, the Applicants are de-categorized while in service as Loco Pilots / Guards and kept in supernumerary post with effect from the date of de-categorization and subsequently absorbed as Crew Controllers. "Their absorption in alternative post as per Section 1 of Section 47 of PWD Act, 1995 makes it clear that the employer is obliged to keep the employee who acquired disability on a supernumerary post only till a suitable post is available. Both the Applicants accepted the posting as Crew Controllers without any demur. A suitable post by way of alternative employment has to be treated as a post which carries fresh responsibility and pay scales. However, by virtue of first proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 47 of the PWD Act, 1995, such employee is still entitled to protection from reduction in rank or pay and other service benefits". It was held by Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others v. B. Banerjee [ 2013 (10) SCC 265], that Running Allowance / Allowance in Lieu of Kilometrage (ALK) are applicable only to running staff, not to Crew Controllers who cannot be treated as running staff. Paras. 12 and 13 of that judgment is reproduced for clarity.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text