The main legal point established in the judgment is that a part-time worker who works full-time hours may be entitled to the wages and benefits of a full-time worker, including consideration for regularization.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

The Union of India and others have filed the instant petition challenging the order dated 11.11.2011 (Annexure P3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby O.A. No. 93/PB/2011 filed by Ganga Ram (respondent No. 1 herein) has been allowed and the petitioners have been directed to grant wages of casual full-time Chowkidar to respondent No. 1 (however, the arrears have been restricted to three years prior to the filing of the Original Application) and further to consider his case for regularization against sanctioned post whenever became available as per his seniority, in terms of the Instructions dated 11.12.2006 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, AIR 2006 SC 1806 within a period of three months. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the impugned order.

2. Undisputedly, respondent No. 1 was appointed as Part-time Chowkidar on 12.05.1995 at Sub Post Office, Nawanshahr by Superintendent of Post Office, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar (petitioner No. 3 herein). As per the terms and conditions of the appointment, he was appointed on contract basis and his services were liable to be terminated at any time without any notice. Even though in the said letter the appointment of respondent No. 1 was described as Part-time but it is undisputed fact that he had performed his duties for more than 8 hours a day. Undisputedly, respondent No. 1 is continuously working as such with the petitioner department.

3. In the year 1991, vide Memorandum dated 12.4.1991, the petitioners formulated a Scheme known as Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status) Scheme, according to which Temporary Status was to be conferred on all casual labourers who were in employment as on 29.11.1989 and were in continuous employment thereafter. Undisputedly under the said Scheme all such Part-time Chowkidars, who were engaged prior to 1993, had been conferred the benefit of temporary status and subsequently regularized as Group 'D' employees. However, respondent No. 1 was not conferred the temporary status because he was appointed in the year 1995. In spite of the fact that till date respondent No. 1 is continuously working as such with the petitioner Department, he has not been granted the wages of full-time Chowkidar and his services were not regularized, therefore, he filed the aforesaid O.A. before the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal after considering the submissions made by respondent No. 1 and objections raised by the petitioners, allowed the O.A. and held that respondent No. 1 who has been working for more than 8 hours a day is to be treated as full-time Chowkidar and he is entitled to wages of full-time Chowkidar. It has been held that the issue with regard to treating such part-time Chowkidars as full-time Chowkidars is covered by number of decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Rattan Chand v. Union of India and another (O.A. No. 822/HP/1998 decided on 15.5.2000); Puran Chand v. Union of India and another (O.A.No. 1084/HP/1994 decided on 29.10.1996) and Narain Singh v. Union of India and another, (O.A. No. 861/CH/1999 decided on 25.4.2000) and accordingly the petitioners were directed to grant wages of casual full-time Chowkidar to respondent No. 1 and the arrears were restricted to three years prior to the filing of the O.A. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not controvert the aforesaid legal position. In view of the fact that respondent No. 1 has been working for more than 8 hours a day as Chowkidar of the petitioner Department, he is entitled to the wages of casual full-time Chowkidar. Thus, in our opinion the Tribunal has rightly granted the said benefit to respondent No. 1 while restricting his claim to