It was, therefore, held that the Rule as stood after modification is that those who retire from service or posts after 31.3.1960 would get the benefit of adding to their service the period as may be admissible for calculation of pension.
The Bench also numbericed that Rule 2423 as it originally stood was found incongruous and companysequently it was amended on 4.12.1987, whereby it was decided the benefit of added years of service under the Rule 2423 A R II was made admissible to all those who retire from service or posts after 31st March, 1960 and who are otherwise eligible under Rule 2423 A R II.
523 of 2005, the respondent joined service on 4.8.1959 as Court Inspector in the Western Railway and he retired from service on superannuation as Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer from Central Railway on 31.12.1989.
Rule was again amended stating that the benefit of added years of service under Rule 2423 A R II would be admissible to all those who retire from service or posts after 31.3.1960 and who were otherwise eligible under Rule 2423 A R II which was made effective from 28th October, 1997.
Further it was also stand of the Railway Administration that the recruitment rules of law inspector were amended only in the year 2000 and the provision in respect of addition of service was effected only then by the time the respondent had retired from service and hence he would number get benefit of Rule 2423 A R II.
The Railway Administration took up the matter in appeal before the Bombay High Court.
1025 of 2005, the first respondent joined service in the Indian Railway Medical Service on 26.10.1958 and the second respondent in November, 1957.
They took up the matter before the Bombay High Court.
On 2.1.1959 he was appointed as D.M.O. Class I Medical Officer through Union Public Service Commission and the respondent rejoined service in Central Railway.
Since the same was denied, they approached the Tribunal but the Tribunal dismissed their applications.
In Civil Appeal No.
While in service he took his master degree in general surgery.
In Civil Appeal No.
The first respondent retired from service on superannuation on 1.9.1979 and the second respondent retired on superannuation on 11.9.1986.
Aggrieved by the stand taken by the Railway Administration, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench filing A. No.
The respondent claimed the benefit of added years of service, the same was, however, denied to him.
Since both the respondents retired from services after 31.3.1960 they claimed the benefit of Rule 2423 A by adding certain years of qualifying years of service for pension.
594 of 2003 against which CA No.1024/05 has been filed before this Court and gave a direction to the Railway Administration to give benefit to the respondents as per Rule 2423 A of the Indian Railway Establishment Rules.
The respondent took up the matter in appeal with the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court and the appeal was allowed holding that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Rule 2423 A as amended and the Railway Administration was directed to give the benefit of added years of service, for reckoning the qualifying service for pension.
Rule was again amended on 15.11.1976 adding a proviso stating that the companycession shall be admissible only if the recruitment rules in respect of a service post companytain such a provision.
The same was denied, hence, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal which has rejected his application.
In Civil Appeal No.
1024 of 2005, the respondent joined Railways as Assistant Surgeon on 23.10.1942 after having crossed the age of 25 years.
Both respondents while in service had acquired their post graduate qualifications.
The High Court endorsed the view taken by the Tribunal and reiterated that in view of the provisions companytained in Rule 2301 of the Indian Establishment Code, the pensionable Railway servants claims to pension is regulated by Rules enforced at the time when he resigns or is discharged from service from the Government.
The reason for denial was that the recruitment rules did number companytain such a provision.
Respondent also claimed the benefit of the Rules which we have referred to in the earlier part of the judgment.
The Tribunal allowed the application and directed the Railway Administration to fix the pension of the respondent adding to his service, the period by which the respondent at the time of recruitment exceeded 25 years of service or a period of five years whichever is less for the purpose of calculating the pension.
473/2002.
