Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a retired Railway employee, was appointed as an Apprentice Telecom Inspector on 23/12/1964 and completed his two-year apprenticeship on 23/02/1967. Due to non-availability of a vacancy, he was posted against a working post on 10/04/1967, i.e., after a gap of 45 days. He later made a representation on 15/10/1993 to update his service register and count the apprenticeship period as qualifying service for pensionary benefits, citing the case of a colleague, Shri R.C. Trigunayat, who was allegedly given similar benefits. The Railway Department did not take a favourable decision, leading the petitioner to file an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that the 45-day gap between completion of apprenticeship and regular posting broke the continuity of service, and the claim of discrimination was not sustainable as the facts of the colleague's case were not identical. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court, after hearing arguments, upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that the gap in service disentitled the petitioner to count the apprenticeship period as qualifying service. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pensionary Benefits - Qualifying Service - Apprenticeship Period - Railway Pension Rules - The petitioner, a retired Railway employee, sought counting of his apprenticeship period as qualifying service for pension. The Tribunal dismissed the application due to a 45-day gap between completion of apprenticeship and regular posting. The High Court upheld the dismissal, holding that the gap broke the continuity of service, and the claim of discrimination based on a colleague's case failed as the facts were not identical. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the period of apprenticeship can be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits when there was a gap of 45 days between completion of apprenticeship and regular posting.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Law Points
- Apprenticeship period not counted as qualifying service for pension if there is a break in service
- Pensionary benefits require continuous service
- Discrimination claim fails when facts are not identical
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (01) 87
Writ Petition No. 3162 of 2001
P. B. Majmudar, A. P. Bhangale
Mr. M.W. Harsulkar for the Petitioner, Mr. R.S. Sundaram for respondent nos. 1 & 2
Union of India, thr. General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai, CST; Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Nagpur; Vice Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's application for counting apprenticeship period as qualifying service for pension.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to have his apprenticeship period counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits.
Filing Reason
The Railway Department did not take a favourable decision on the petitioner's representation to update his service register and count the apprenticeship period as qualifying service.
Previous Decisions
The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the Original Application No. 321/1998 on 29/06/2001, holding that the 45-day gap between completion of apprenticeship and regular posting broke continuity, and the discrimination claim failed.
Issues
Whether the period of apprenticeship can be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits when there is a gap of 45 days between completion of apprenticeship and regular posting.
Whether the petitioner's claim of discrimination based on the case of a colleague is sustainable.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that his colleague Shri R.C. Trigunayat was given similar benefits, and thus he should also be granted the same.
The respondents contended that the 45-day gap broke the continuity of service, and the facts of the colleague's case were not identical.
Ratio Decidendi
A gap in service between completion of apprenticeship and regular posting breaks the continuity required for counting the apprenticeship period as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. A claim of discrimination fails when the facts of the compared case are not identical.
Judgment Excerpts
The Tribunal came to the conclusion that since there was a gap of 45 days in giving the posting order to the petitioner after completing the apprenticeship, no relief can be given to the petitioner on the ground of discrimination and dismissed the Original Application.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Original Application No. 321/1998 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur, which was dismissed on 29/06/2001. The petitioner then filed Writ Petition No. 3162 of 2001 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was dismissed on 18/01/2012.
Acts & Sections
