Ram Kumar v. Union Of India

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, Mr Goburdhan does not dispute the statement of Mr Sibal, counsel for the respondent that out of 850 people, 504 have been adjusted against posts now created and 488 out of those 504 have been regularised. It is also brought to our notice that the widow of one of the petitioners has already been offered a job.

2. Mr Goburdhan seems to be interested in about 12 persons who have not been regularised. They seem to be skilled workers at present working in Class III posts. Since regularisation on the basis of our orders have to be only in Class IV posts, Mr Sibal, on instructions states that arrangement in respect of them is that though they are regularised in Class IV posts, they would carry the present pay they are drawing in Class III posts by protection until they are regularised in Class III posts following the rules and instructions.

3. Mr Goburdhan relying upon the Board's instructions issued on 20-1-1985, says that these people have already worked for more than five years and have become entitled for regularisation in Class III posts. If that be so, we call upon the Railway Administration to give effect to the Board's instructions referred to above and consider the claim of the 12 persons named below for regularisation as against Class III posts subject to their satisfying the requirements laid down in the Board's instructions.

(1) Shop No. 16, Pocket R/4, Pitampura, New Delhi. Reserved Price Rs 88,500 (2) Shop No. 12, Naraina Place, DDA Shopping Complex. Reserved Price Rs 3 lakhs (3) Shop No. 11, Pocket 8, Sector C, Vasant Kunj. Reserved Price Rs 48,000

4. The only other question to be seen is with regard to entitlement to pension.

5. It appears that the Board on the basis of the Fourth Pay Commission Report has provided for pension at the time of superannuation even to those who are temporary employees. In para 12 of our order on the basis of material then placed before us, we had taken the view that temporary employees were not entitled to pension on superannuation. We direct the Railway Board to consider the claim of the temporary employees who are before us for pension at the time of superannuation or otherwise in view of the fact that the Board has taken its own decision differently. Obviously appropriate material had not been placed before this Court when the submission of Mr Ramaswamy for Railway Administration was accepted in the order. The decision is beneficial to the employees and we direct that the Board's decision may be implemented.

6. CMP stands disposed of.