Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13596
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ajay Pratap Singh, J
Bijay Prasad – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
Original Application | OA No. 145/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Om Prakash Singh
For the Respondents: Shri Ravindra Rai, Addl. CGSC
Temporary employees who have rendered long service are entitled to pension benefits even if not regularized, based on established legal precedents.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Sections 19; Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 - Employee claims pension and pensionary benefits after retirement - Applicant, engaged as contingent-paid Gardener since 1985, conferred temporary status in 2000, retired in 2022 without regularization - Court determined that failure to regularize does not negate entitlement to pension under established schemes (Paras 2-5, 11-12, 13-14, 58-62).
(B) Legal Principles - Temporary employees are entitled to pension based on consolidated service recognition - Relevant judgments clarify that service under temporary status constitutes qualifying service for pension irrespective of regularization (Paras 10-15, 26-36).
(C)
Findings of Court:
No fault of applicant for not being regularized, thus entitled to pension and benefits based on services rendered (Paras 47-49, 56).
(D)
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to pension for un-regularized temporary service? (Paras 13, 18). (E)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that long-term service and conferred temporary status validate the claim for retirement benefits (Paras 14-15, 26). (F)
Result: Original Application allowed; pension and benefits are to be calculated and paid with interest within three months.
ORDER
PER:- AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER [JUDICIAL]
1. Heard learned counsel for parties with consent through video conferencing mode.
PRAYER
2. By way of present Original Application filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 , applicant has sought the main relief (as extracted from OA) as under:-
“8(i) Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to grant pension and all other retiral benefits to applicant in old pension scheme from 01.09.2022.
8(ii) Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to treat the applicant retired from service on superannuation from 31.08.2022 (A/N) instead of “to be discharged from duty”.
8(iii) Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to pay statutory interest on retiral dues.
8(iv) Cost of the case may please be awarded to the applicant.
8(v) Any other relief/reliefs as your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
FACTS IN BRIEF
3. Briefly stated facts as adumbrated by applicant in the instant OA are that applicant was engaged as contingent paid Mali at Divisional Office Gaya on payment of monthly allowance w.e.f. 01.02.1985 vide order dated 31.01.1985 (Annexure A/1). Services of the applicant were enhanced for seven hours w.e.f. 01.08.1993 and allowance was also enhanced from Rs.565/- to Rs.659/- vide order dated 29.07.1993 (Annexure A-2). Applicant was entrusted with additional duty of Caretaker in Inspection Room and accordingly his duty was enhanced from seven hours to eight hours vide order dated 23.02.1999 (Annexure A-3).
4. Applicant was conferred temporary status of Group ‘D’ cadre being full time contingency paid staff w.e.f. 01.03.2000 vide order dated 01.03.2000 (Annexure A-4). Applicant was granted temporary status of Group ‘D’ from 01.03.2000 and continued working in the same condition upto his retirement, i.e., till 31.08.2022. Since the respondents were biased, they vide Order dated 31.08.2022 (Annexure A-5) instead of retiring the applicant used the word “is permitted to be discharged from duty of Gardener-cum-Caretaker w.e.f. 31.08.2022 (A/N)”.
5. Applicant made representation on 12.09.2018 to the respondents requesting for regularization of his services and again just few days before his retirement, applicant made yet another representation dated 25.07.2022 (Annexure A-6) for the same relief but of no avail.
6. The applicant is claiming that he was conferred temporary status on 01.03.2000 and remained in job upto 31.08.2022 and has worked as temporary status for 22 years and 5 months and, therefore, 50% of this period is required to be reckoned towards qualifying service and his services would be more than the required ten years. Hence, he is entitled to pension in old pension scheme from 01.09.2022. In support of his claim, applicant relied upon order of this Tribunal dated 21.02.2022 in OA No.145/2019 Shiv Chandra Sah vs. Union of India & Ors. wherein order of this Tribunal in OA No.777 of 2016, OA No.572 of 2017, OA No.372/2017 and OA No.609/2017 has been discussed in detail. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of in CWJC No.10978 of 2017 and CWJC No.11435/2017. In all the relied upon cases, applicants served more than 20 years of service as T/S and it is decided that 50% of this will qualify for pension as per Rules, 1965 without regularization as MTS. The present case of the applicant is covered by the aforesaid judicial precedents.
7. The respondents did not consider representations of the applicant (Annexure A-6 series) and he was retired on 31.08.2022 from service without being regularized as MTS due to fault of the respondents.
8. Per contra, opposing the claim of the applicant, respondents have filed written statement and stated that applicant was appointed as contingent paid Gardener cum Caretaker vide order dated 31.01.1985 on a monthly payment w.e.f. 01.02.1985. His working hours was enhanced to seven hours a day and was being paid Rs.659/- per month fro
