- (1.) THE applicant union of India represented through general Manager South Eastern Railway, and its officials have challenged the judgment and order dated 27th July, 2005 passed by the learned Central administrative Tribunal (hereinafter in short referred to as Tribunal ). The learned Tribunal by its impugned judgment and order has directed the applicants herein to grant pension and other retiral benefits to the applicants for the services alleged to have been rendered by him for the period of 17th june 1969 to 24th of April 1982 treating him regularly absorbed in Group C post as Motor Lory Driver (hereinafter in short ML Driver) as per rules. The fact of the case leading to filing of the above application before the Tribunal is as follows: Ujigar the respondent herein was engaged as a Substitute Peon in the office of Chief Electrical Engineer on and from 17th June 1969 and then was engaged as ML Driver with effect from 1st May, 1971 in the Container Service organization of the applicant at a pay scale of Rs. 110 - 180/- as under DTS, shalimar the said post of ML Driver was and is a Group C post. He worked in that capacity till 23rd April 1982 when he was declared surplus in that organization. Thereafter he was sought to be engaged as substitute Shed khalasi which is Group D Post. Obviously being aggrieved by the said reversion, he unsuccessfully filed a writ petition in this Hon'ble Court and ultimately he was asked to join the post of Shed Khalasi at Santragachi in terms of the aforesaid order dated 23rd April, 1982. It appears he never joined that post, nor worked as such. Though once he wanted to join after 16 years after obtaining fit certificate, but he was not allowed to do so. He thereafter made several representations fruitlessly for redressal of his grievance namely for reinstatement in the services. Ultimately he filed an application being OA no. 1226 of 1996 to the learned Tribunal. The said application was, however, allowed to be withdrawn by an order dated 23rd April, 2003 granting liberty to file representation regarding grant of pensionary benefits for his regular service in the department from 1969 to 1982 i. e. about 13 years along with necessary and supporting documents and the respondent authority by this order was asked to consider the same in accordance with law. Thereafter he made written representation stating all the facts of his engagement and claimed retiral benefit. The same was disposed by an order dated 25th August 2003 by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer South Eastern Railway kharagpur. By this order the said Officer found that the respondent Ujigar, was not entitled to pension because he was never absorbed in the regular railway service.
(2.) UJIGAR thereafter challenging the aforesaid reasoned order and praying almost similar relief which was asked in the earlier application filed second application being OA No. 1163 of 2003 on which the impugned order was passed.
(3.) THE learned Tribunal by its judgment and order concluded upon considering records and other things that the applicant had rendered 11 years of service in the capacity of ML Driver and before that he worked as Substitute peon from 1969 till 1st May, 1971. So his total length of service was from 17th June 1969 to 22nd April 1989 for about 13 years. The learned Tribunal therefore by necessary implication gave a declaratory relief that he should be treated to have been regularly absorbed in Group C Post as ML Driver taking into his service rendered from 17th June, 1969.;