LawSphereX

CHAIRMAN, MIN. OF RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI AND 4 ORS. v. T.N. CHANDRAN, HYD.

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Judgment date:

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-12-23. CHAIRMAN, MIN. OF RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI AND 4 ORS. v. T.N. CHANDRAN, HYD. Read the judgment and...

Judgment text

I 3413I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION NOS: 24933 0F 20't7 AND 32776 0F 2023 w. P. NO. 24933 0F 2017 Between: 1. Union of lndia, represented by The Chairman, Railway Board [Vlinistry of Railways Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. General lt/anager, South Central Railway Railnilayam, Secunderabad. Bhavan, 3. The Chief Administrative Officer, South Central Railway, Rail Nirman Secunderabad. 4. The Financial Adviser & chief Accounts officer, South central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 5. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction-ll), South Central Railway Kazipet' . ,... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND T. N. Chandran, s/o. Narayanaan, Aged about 62 years, Retd. Highly Skilled Artisan Olo. tfre Deputy Chief Enjinee(Construction), South Central Ra.

ilway, Raichur. (Now Xrrip"tl nyo. ri. no. 2-17ii,Opi Uppal Bus Depot, tr,/allikarjuna Nagar, Hyderabad- 500 039. ..... RESPONDENT,APPELLANT Petition Under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, quashing the Order dated 08. 09. 2016 in O. A. no. 987 of 2015 ol the central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, as being illegal and in violation of the relevant statutory Rules, more particularly Rule 31 of the Railway service l)ension Rules, '1 993 and Rule 2005 (a) of the lndian Railway Establishment l/a nua I. A. NO:1 OF 20 P. NO:4008 OF 20171' Between T. N. Chandran, S/:. lJarayanaan, Aged about 62 years, Retd. Highly l3killed Artisan O/o. the Chiel l:nginee(Construction), South Central Raiiway Raichur (Now Qeputy Rl/o. H. \c,. 2:711, opp Uppal.

Bus Depot, tr/allikarjuna Nagar, Hyderabad- [gfip9U 500 039. .... ,PETITIONERS AND 1. Union of lndia, represented by The Chairman, Railway Bo,ard t\/inistry of Railways Rail Elhavan, New Delhi. 2. General [t4anagler, South Cenlral Railway Railnilayam, Secunderabad. 3. The Chiel ,Administrative Officer, South Central Railway, Rail N irman Bhavan, Secunderab,ad. 4. The Finarrcial r\Cviser & Chief Accounts Officer, South Centr:,I Railway, Rail Nilayam. . ie currrlerabad. 5. The Deputy Chir;f Engineer (Construction-ll), South Central Ra lway Kazipet. ... R1:SPONDENTS Petitiori L nder siection 151 cPC praying that in the circumste nces stated in the affidavit fileJ in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the inter rr stay granted vide order dated 02_08. 2017 jn WF,IVP. No. 30892 of 2017 in WP. Nc . 241\33 of 2017 in the interest of justice. l. A. NO:2 OF 201 P.

NO: 30892 0F 2017) Petition u rder Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file i in rlrpport of the petition, the High court may re pleased to suspend the op-'r;aticr of the Order dated 08. 09. 20. 16 passed in r). A. No. 987 of 2o15 of the central Administrative Tribunal, Hydera. bad BencJr, Hyderabad Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI S. VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondents : SRI K. R. K. V. PRASAD W. P. NO: 32776 OF 2023 Between: T. N. Chandran, aged 60 years, Occ. Retd. Highty Q{o \qrayanan, Skiiled Artisan, O/o The. Depqty Chief Engineer (Construction), South Central Rlikay, Raichur, Rl/o H. No. 2-17l1, Opp. Uppal Bus Depot, MaltikarjLina Nagar, Hyderabad-500039. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Union of India, Rep. by the Chairman, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 2 The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.

a The Chief Administrative Officer, South Central Railway, Rail Nirman Bhavan, Secunderabad. 4 The Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, South Central Raitway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. The Deputy Chief Engineer, (Construction), South Central Railway, Mahabubnagar-50900'1 . ..... RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari by calling for the order dated 08. 08. 2023 in RA102114012016 in O. A. No. 02 l/98712015 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and set aside and quash the said order of the Tribunal and direct the respondents to settle the pensionary benefits and pension on the last pay drawn i. e. Rs. 15,550 and grant all consequential benefits. l. A.

NO:1 OF 2023 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstqnces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to hear the Writ Petition along with W. P. No. 24933 of 2017. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K. R. K. V. PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following COMMON ORDER '::' t, SHA\'ILI HON'BLE SFI. I ABHINAND KUMAR JUSTICE AND CE NARAYANA AII S HETTY HON'B I, E S FU I I. AXMI JUST of 23 w. l) N . 24 . ,J f2 327 -fi Abltinand Ktnar S hat ii) COMMO N O f er Hon'bh IDER: d' Jutite Sinr:,: ther issue involved in both the writ petltlcns $ and one and the same, they are being heard togethcr disposed t>[ by wayof this common order' in the order dated 08'09'2016 passed 2. Ag3rieved by Tr:ibunal' Administrative 2015 bythe Gntral O. ANo.?

S7 ,rf c:f 2017 'the \X/'P'No'24933 Hyderabacl (fcr short Tribunal), the petitionen-Railways' has been filect by in 08'08'2021 passed by the order dated 3. Lggdevcd zots by the Gntral in O. ANo. 987 of RNo2ulo/:1016 'the (for short Tribunal, Hlderabad Adrninistrati,,: of 2023 has been filed by the Tribunat'), \{'. P. No. 32776 respond ent- :qtplicant. 4. F<>r ,-he sake of convenience, the frrcts in of 2017 are discussed hereunder' I \fl. P. N(,. 2:4913 i I l I ; I l I i I i it I I a ! rl 1tr 5. FIeard Sri Akhileshwar, leamed counsel represenring Sri S. Vivek Chandrasekhar, leamed Standing Counsel for Railwap appearing for the petitioners and Sri K. RK. V. Prasad, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent. 6 It is the case of the petitionerc rhar initially, the . was respondent was appointed on casual basis and he granted temporarystatus with effect from 01.. 01.. 1984 and his servlces were regularized with effect from 18. 05. 2001.

Thereafteq he was granted fusured C-areer Progression on 02. 09. 2002, 1" Modified Assured Career Progression on 01. 09. 2008 and IInd Modified Assured Career Progression on 10. 09. 2012 and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.. 10. 201. 4. Howeveq his clairn for reckoning 50o/o of the casual labour service and 100o/o CL 'was service with temporary status rejected on the ground of non-fuHilment of the requirements specified in Rule 2005(a) i of the Indi,m Ihilway Establishment Manual. In those -'et of circumstarrt:,:s. the respondent had approached the Tribunal by filing O.. A. lio. 987 of 201'5 contending that he shotrld be extended t[i. : al t>resaid benefits. 'Iiibtural 7 The uide order 08. 09.

2016 partly allolre,J the OA by clirecting the petitionen to count 50% o1' the responder t',; c,r,;ual labour service and full temporary-st't-vice as qualifie J service for the purpose of extending all mor Letary benefits ir respxrct of his pension and other resultant beirefits within a of rhree months. Further, the respondent 1r,-'tio,J was directed to submit a comprehensive reptesent. ation ventilatin! , his raised in the OA penaini rg to l4rievances rt:ceipt MACP be n,:fit with all documentary evidence. On of such rcpft'sentation, the petitioners were directt:d to consider thLe same in accordance with law and p$s a speaking c,rder. However, pensionary benefits weft) ,not granted ir the r;aid order. Being not sadsfied with tht: said -order, the respondent has filed Review Application No. 021. /40/2016 in O. ANo. 987 of 2015 was filed. The Tribunal uide order dated 08. 08. 2023 dismissed the review. Challenging the sarne, the respondent has filed t \X/. P. No. 3227 6 of 2023. 8.

Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners had contended that the Tribunal has already granted relief in favour of the respondent and directed the respondent to submit a detailed representation to the petitioners and on receipt of such representation, the petitioners were directed to corsider the same and pass appropriate orders. If the respondent has arry grievance, let him submit a representation and the petitionen would consider the same and pass appropriate orden in accordance wrth law. 9. Learrred counsel appearing for the respondent had contended that pensionary benefits have to be fixed based upon the last drawn emoluments of the respondent. Thereforc, ap,propriate orders be passed in the uT it p,'titiors by directurg the petitioners to consider the represerration submitte ct by t he respondent seeking his claim for re-lixation of his pa1'based upon the last drawn emoluments of the respond(lnt. 10. F*,r.

urB considered the rival submissions made by the leamed rrrufls3i on either side, this C-ourt is of the vir:w that both thr: 'r,rit petitiors can be disposed of by drectLng the respond,:nt tc submit a representation to the petitionen in respect ,rf r-erised persionary benefits, MACP benefrts, and to count 50('1, of casual labour service and full tenrporary service rL. qualified sewice for the puryose of calcular. ing his pension and pen^sionary benefits and on receipt . f such represertatiorL, the petitioners shall consider the sarne and pass aplrl()prirrte orders in accordance with law. ll. Ar:i:,rrcingly, both the writ appeals are disposed of. No costs. ,11 Miscellaneous petitions, rt any, pending shail stand closed. REDDY SD/. P . PADMANABHA SI TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYi/ SECTION OFFICER To ,1'TheChairman,Unionoflndia,RailwayBoard,MinistryofRailways,Rai Bhavan, New Delhi. i Rail Nilayam' Secunderabad 2.

The General Manager, South Central Railway' south Cential Railway' Rail Nirman Bhavan' . i'r," cr,i"i norinirtirtiu" officer, Secunderabad. Rail Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer' South Central Railway' 4 The Nilayam, Secunderabad' 5 in"'O"fjrty Chief Engineer, (Construction)' South Central Railway' . Mahabubnagar-509001 [OPUC] 6 il"" Cc1" snr K. R. K. V. PRASAD, Advocate . (oPUC Advocate cHANDRA sEKHAR' 7 6;; aa io inr s. vrvex DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL PNNVELI'I TUIT,TAR, 8 One CC to SRI GADI OF INDIA Advocate [OPUC] I Two CD CoPies SA GJP I I I ( HIGH COIJRT DATED:21111212024 H s4 r{i COMMON ORDER v WP. Nos. 2493:l OF 2017 z 7 AP I zlffi \ \\ <- AND 32776 of 2023 \\"/ * c i DISPOSING OF THE BOTH WRIT PET'ITONS WITHOUT COSTS. // /. 2 /x

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.