ups_00515 — In the present case, a Railway servant who claimed retrenchment compensation is not entitled to claim service prior to retrenchment as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. Thus, the Applicant is entitled for counting his full temporary status casual service from 7-4-1977 to 14-5-1982 after deducting non-qualifying service of the Applicant as qualifying service for the purpose of granting the benefits under MACP benefits, etc. Thus, if the service of the Applicant exceeds 10 years, he woul

In the present case, a Railway servant who claimed retrenchment compensation is not entitled to claim service prior to retrenchment as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. Thus, the Applicant is entitled for counting his full temporary status casual service from 7-4-1977 to 14-5-1982 after deducting non-qualifying service of the Applicant as qualifying service for the purpose of granting the benefits under MACP benefits, etc. Thus, if the service of the Applicant exceeds 10 years, he would become eligible for pension in terms of Rule 69 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 — The chunk discusses a ruling in the case M. Arogya Dass v. General Manager, South Central Railway and others where the Tribunal decides that if the full temporary service from 7-4-1977 to 14-5-1982 o... — Facts: The Applicant states that his date of engagement as casual labour as 7-4-1977 by Senior Divisional Personnel Officer of Vijayawada Division (R. No.3), is not correct and the date mentioned above should be 7-4-1972. He relied on the judgment of Labour Court at Guntur in C.M.P. No. 316/1979, dated 7-6-1984 to state so. The result cannot be verified from Right to Information Act as requested by him as the period in question is over 18 years old. The only complaint in this connection by the Applicant is the negligent action of R. No. 3 which resulted in delay of 23 years in grant of his pension and retirement benefits. He states that, as per Railway Board orders, entire temporary service is to be taken into consideration for payment of pension. The Applicant submits that he was awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement with full retiral benefits. Hence he is entitled for pension for which exceeds 10 years of service and prays for the pension as he had completed over 10 years of service. The Respondents contested the OA by stating that the Applicant was compulsorily retired on 7-10-1991 on account of punishment awarded to him under Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. After considering the various details of his service, the Railways state that he had put in only 8 years, 2 months and 23 days of qualifying service and hence not eligible for pension and other pensionary benefits in terms of Rule 69 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. However, as per Rules 69 and 70 of Pension Manual, service gratuity and retirement gratuity proportionate to his qualifying service was paid to him. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal held: