The central legal point established in the judgment is that the conferment of temporary status is a prerequisite for awarding retiral dues, as per Rule 154 A of the Manual and relevant case law.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Mahendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for Union of India and perused the records.

2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 3.11.2013 and 17.12.2013, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow, by means of which the original application as well as the review application filed by the petitioner were rejected.

3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Contingency Paid (C.P.) Chowkidar on 24.01.1980 and subsequently the Sub Post Office, Janaura, District Faizabad was abolished on 23.09.1986 and the service of the petitioner was terminated without any notice. The petitioner preferred O.A.No. 40/1989 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal by means of the order date 4.11.1991 allowed the claim of petitioner. In pursuance of the aforesaid order the respondents reinstated the petitioner on 16.12.1991 on the vacant post of C.P. Chowkidar. The petitioner thereafter made an application for back wages and other consequential benefits and when nothing was heard from the side of the opposite parties, he again filed O.A. No.40/93 which was dismissed by means of the judgment and order dated 4.2.1993. The petitioner had superannuated on 31.1.2009 after completing the age of superannuation of 60 years. After retirement the petitioner made an application for grant of pensionary benefits and when the same was denied, the petitioner ultimately proceeded to file an O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow thereafter had considered the claim of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate as to when temporary status was conferred to him and, therefore, he was not entitled to the pensionary benefits. The review petition filed by the petitioner was also rejected on the same ground.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has derived information under Right to Information Act and the said information goes to indicate that the petitioner was conferred with temporary status on 1.1.1993. The aforesaid document was not available at the time when the claim of the petitioner was decided by the learned Tribunal.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the only question which was to be decided by the learned Tribunal was as to whether temporary status was conferred upon the petitioner or not. The aforesaid information which has been placed on record has not been denied by learned counsel for Union of India, rather it has been admitted by learned counsel for Union of India that temporary status was conferred upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that once the temporary status was conferred upon the petitioner, he was entitled to be paid retiral dues as contemplated under the law. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court which was rendered in Writ Petition No. 225 (SB) of 2008; Ram Das v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow & others.

6. Learned counsel for Union of India, on the other hand, submits that irrespective of the fact whether temporary status was granted to the petitioner or not but he was never regularised on the post in question and, therefore, the claim raised by the petitioner is not sustainable under the law and neither he is entitled for the retiral dues as claimed by him and the Tribunal has committed no illegality in rejecting the claim of petitioner.

7. We have heard the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for Union of India.

8. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for Union of India has to be considered in the light of the fact that as to whether grant of temporary status is sine qua non for grant of retiral benefits or the regularisation on the post in question is necessary.

9. We find that the Tribunal