Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13191
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
OM PRAKASH, J
Amar Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 330/00256 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.K. Kushwaha, Prabhav Srivastava, Sharad Kumar
For the Respondents: Rajni Kant Rai
Eligibility for pension and service benefits requires prior temporary status before 01.01.2004, which the applicants lacked.
Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Service Benefits - The applicants, casual labourers regularized in 2009, sought pensionary benefits applicable to employees prior to 01.01.2004. The Tribunal denied the request, asserting applicants were not granted temporary status, hence ineligible for the old pension scheme. (Paras 4, 12-16)
(B) Eligibility for Old Pension Scheme - Applicants engaged before 2004 contended their past service should be recognized, yet the Tribunal clarified that without temporary status, benefits could not be extended, following established precedents. (Paras 3, 8, 11, 17)
Facts of the case:
Applicants, casual laborers from 1988-1998, were regularized but not granted temporary status required for the Old Pension Scheme, leading them to file for entitlement to benefits.
Findings of Court:
Tribunal found no grounds to recognize past service without temporary status; applications dismissed on lack of merit.
Issues: Whether applicants should receive pension benefits despite lacking temporary status pre-2004.
Ratio Decidendi: Tribunal upheld established principles that temporary status is necessary for eligibility under pension benefits, finding no merit in applicants' claim.
Result: OA dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background on applicants' employment status and request for benefits. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by both applicants and respondents regarding pension eligibility. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's examination of previous cases related to pension eligibility. (Para 8 , 11) |
| 4. clarification on necessity of temporary status for pension rights. (Para 10 , 12) |
| 5. final court ruling dismissing the application. (Para 16) |
ORDER
BY JUSTICE OM PRAKASH -VII, MEMBER (J)
Present Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed by the applicants for the following reliefs:
i. To issue an appropriate order or direction, commanding the respondents to declare that the applicants are entitled to receive pensionary benefits as applicable to employees recruited in service prior to 01.01.2004.
ii. To issue an appropriate order or direction, commanding the respondents to extend the benefits of General Provident Fund scheme to the applicants.
iii. To issue an appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to secure the ends of justice.
Iv To award the cost of application in favour of the applicants”.
2. The brief facts of the case are that all the applicants were engaged as daily wagers in the office of respondent No. 3 on various dates between 1988 to 1998. Applicants were in employment when DOPT OM dated 10.09.1993 came into existence, but applicants had not been given the benefit of aforesaid OM because they were not completed 206 days continuous service in a year and were not eligible for grant of temporary status. They were granted non-productivity linked bonus (adhoc bonus) since the year 1999. Applicants were drawing wages at the relevant rate of 1/30th of the pay at the relevant Group D pay scale plus dearness allowance w.e.f. 01.02.2008. 21 casual laborers who were working under the respondent No.3 were granted temporary status w.e.f. 17.04.2006 but applicants have not been given temporary status. On 11.12.2006, an office memorandum was issued by the DOPT for taking steps to regularize as a one time measure the services of casual laborers who have completed 10 years or more service on duly sanctioned post in the office of respondent No. 3. Accordingly, on 22.01.2009, the services of the applicants were regularized. All the applicants preferred a detailed representation dated 10.08.2018 before the respondents authorities requesting therein that the benefit of GPF and old pension scheme may be extended to them, but no decision has been taken by the respondents on the representations of the applicants. Hence, applicants filed the present original application.
3. We have heard Shri S.K. Kushwaha, Shri Shiv Mangal and Shri Prabhav Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Rajni Kant Rai, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant submitted that initially applicants were engaged as daily wager in the office of respondent No. 3 on various dates between 1988 to 1998 and office memorandum was issued mentioning therein that those casual employee, who were employed on 10.09.1993 and had rendered the prescribed one year continuous service were to be granted temporary status and those who have completed three years of service were to be treated at par with Grade ‘D’ employee for the purposes of GPF and other incidence of regular service and also for regularization. It is also submitted that applicants’ services were regularized on dated 22.01.2009 but applicants were not allowed with the benefit of Old Pension Scheme whereas they were in service prior to 1.1.2004. Thus, after regularization, they were entitled to be treated in the old pension scheme. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that in the Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Uma Devi and Ors , 2006 SCC 753, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed to the Union of India to take step to regularize as
