UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus K.G. RADHAKRISHNA PANICKER AND OTHERS

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 38 · Decided: 28-04-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
v. 
K.G. RADHAKRISHNA PANICKER AND OTHERS 
APRIL 28, 1998 
[S.C. AGRA WAL, S. SAG IR AHMED AND M. SRINIVASAN JJ.] 
Service Law-Railway Establishment Manual, Para 250/(a)-Pension 
and retrial benefits-Employees engaged as Project Casual Labour-
Absorbed on regular/temporary/permanent post-Benefit of temporary status 
C coriferred on Project Casual Labour under the Scheme approved in Inder Pal 
Yadav's case for the first time-Vide Order dated 14.10.1980, half of services 
rendered after attaining temporaJy status to b'e counted w.e.f 01.01.1981 on 
the basis of scheme for pensionary benefits-Held, counted for purpose of 
retiral benefits-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14 and 16. 
D 
. The Railway Board by order dated October 14, 1980 made provision for 
Casual Labour that the period of service after attainment of temporary status 
on completion of 120 days of continuous service should be counted as 
qualifying service for pensionary benefits. The Project Casual Labour 
approached this court by way of a Writ Petition, on being left out from the 
E ambit of the said order. Thereafter during the pendency of this case, the 
Railway Ministry framed a scheme making provision for the grant of 
temporary status to the Project Casual Labour on completion of 360 days of 
continuous service. Subsequently this court approved the said scheme in 
!nder Pal Yadav's Case but modified the date 01.01.1984 in para 5.l(a)(I) to 
01.01.1981 giving direction that it must be implemented by re-casting the 
F stages consistent with the change in the date as directed. 
The respondents joined the Southern Railway, Madras as Project Casual 
Labour 011 different dates during year 1954 to 1973 and were regularly 
absorbed in class IV service from 1962 to 1982 having put in 5-14 years of 
G service as Casual Labour. Thereafter, the respondents pleaded before the 
Railway Authority that they were entitled to be treated as 'Temporary 
Railway employees' after continuous service of six months as and the entire 
period of their service as Casual Labour should be counted for the purpose 
of retiral benefi.ts. However, the Railway administration rejected the claim 
of respondents and held that the service as Causal Labour prior to 
H Ol.IOI.1981 could not be counted for pensionary benefits. Aggrieved by the 
38 
' 
U.0.1. v. K.G. RADHAKRISHNA PANICKER 
39 
decision of Railways Authority, respondents approached the tribunal. The A 
tribunal allowed the application relying on D.S. Nakara 's Case. However, 
contrary view was taken by the tribunal on other applications. 
In appeal before this court, the appellants contended that the previous 
service rendered as Casual Labour prior to 01.01.1981 would not.be taken 
into consideration for the purpose of calculating qualifying service. 
B 
The respondents contended that having continuously worked as casual 
labour without any break followed by regularisation their entire service as 
casual labour should be counted for the purpose of retiral benefits and that 
in any event at least half of their service as casual labour after the initial C 
period of six months should be taken into account as qualifying service for 
retiral benefits. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : The Judgment of the Tribunal is set aside, as well as the 
judgment in which the said judgment has been followed holding that the D 
service rendered as Project Casual Labour by employees who were absorbed 
on regular permanent/temporary posts prior to 1.1.1918 should not be counted 
for the purpose of retirai benefits. The judgment in which the Tribunal has 
taken contrary view is affirmed. [ 49-FJ 
lnder Pal Yadav & Ors. Etc. v. Union of India & Ors. Etc., (1985) 3 
SCR 837; explained. 
D.S. Nakra v. Union of India, (1983) 2 SCR 165, distinguished. 
E 
Ram Kumar & Ors. v. U.O.l. & Ors., [1988) 2SCR138; Krishna Kumar F 
:..., 
v. U.O.l. (1990) 4 SCC 207; State of West Bengalv. Ratan Behari Dev, [1993) 
4 SCC 62 and State of Rajasthan v. Sevanivatra Karamchari Hitkari Samit1; 
[1995) 2 sec 117, cited. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4643 of 
1992 Etc. 
G 
From the Judgment of Order dated 8.2.91 of the Central Administrative 
Tribunal, at Madras in O.A. No. 485 of 1989. 
P.P. Malhotra, N.N. Goswami and S. Sivasubramaniam, Hemant Sham1a, 
Barish Chandra, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Rajiv Nanda, Y.P. Mahajan, A.D.N. Rao, H 
40 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1998) 3 S.C.R. 
A Ms. Indira Sawhney, Arvind 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.