Supreme Court dismissed pension increase claim for shunting locomotive driver due to restrictive interpretation of traction vehicle definition.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's cassation appeal regarding a pension increase based on a specific calculation for railway employment. The petitioner argued that driving a diesel shunting locomotive constituted regular traction vehicle work, while the opposing party contended these vehicles are auxiliary tools for shunting operations rather than mainline traction units. The court ruled that the statutory definition of a traction vehicle must be interpreted restrictively to include only vehicles designed for general passenger and cargo transport, excluding auxiliary shunting locomotives.