http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: THE SECRETARY (ESTT)RAILWAY BOARD & ANR. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI D. FRANCIS PAUL ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/07/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (7)   706

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH       SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.14887 OF 1996                         (CC-3212/96)                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      The two  petitioners in  these cases  were recruited as legal assistants  after having  put in  more  than  8  years practice at the Bar. One was recruited on April 24, 1963 and the other  on July  3, 1964.  After  putting  in  qualifying service of  25 years,  they retired from service on June 13, 1989 and  March 31, 1992 respectively. They relied upon Rule 2423-A of  the Railway  Establishment  Mannual  II  claiming addition of  5 years  qualifying service  for computation of their pension.  The Tribunal  in the  impugned orders  dated 6.12.1995 allowed  the applications and computation thereof. The same are assailed in their applications.      Rule 2423-A reads thus:      "2423-A (C..S.R.404-B):- An Officer      appointed to  a service  or post on      or after Ist April, 1968 may add to      his    service    qualifying    for      superannuation pension (but not for      any other  class  of  pension)  the      actual period  not  exceeding  one-      fourth the length of his service or      the actual  period by which his age      at the  time of recruitment exceeds      twentyfive years  or  a  period  of      five years, whichever is the least,      if the service or post is one:-      (a)   for    which    post-graduate      research       or        specialist      qualification,  or   experience  in      scientific     technological     or      professional fields,  is  essential      and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    (b) to  which  candidates  of  more      than twenty  five years  of age are      normally recruited.           Provided that  this concession      shall not be admissible to any such      officer    unless     his    actual      qualifying service  at the  time he      quits  Government  Service  is  not      less than ten years.           Provided further that any such      officer who is recruited at the age      of thirtyfive  years or  more  may,      within a  period  of  three  months      from the  date of  his appointment,      elect  to   forego  his  rights  to      pension where  under  he  shall  be      eligible to  subscribe to the State      Railway   Provident   Fund   as   a      nonpensionable employee." The amended rule reads thus:      "The above  Rule was amended as can      be seen from the Railway Ministry’s      letter No.F(E)III/76  PNI 12  dated      15-11-76,  whereby   an  additional      proviso was  added to  the rule  as      Under:-           Provided  further   that  this      concession shall be admissible only      if the recruitment rules in respect      of the  said service/post contain a      specific provision that the service      or post  is one  which carries  the      benefit of this rule.      (2)  A   railway  servant   who  is      recruited at the age of thirty-five      years or  more, may within a period      of three  months from  the date  of      his appointment, elect to forgo his      right  to   pension,  whereupon  he      shall be  eligible to  subscribe to      the State Railway Provident Fund as      a nonpensionable employee.      (3) The  option referred to in sub-      rule (2)  once exercised,  shall be      final."      Relying upon  this proviso  by later  amendment, it  is contended that  since no  specific provision was made in the conditions of  service  at  the  time  of  appointment.  the respondents are  not entitled to the benefit of the rule, It is not  in dispute  that the  rule came  to  be  amended  in November 15,  1976 long after their appointment, Under these circumstances, the amendment would be prospective. It is not in dispute that this amendment came to be made pursuant to recommendation  made  by  the  III  Pay  Commission  and  on acceptance thereof  the rule came to be amended. Under these circumstances,  the   amendment  cannot  have  retrospective effect in respect of the persons already in service would be prospective; it would be applicable only to those candidates appointed after  the date  of the  amendment introducing the proviso.      The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.