Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13597
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ajay Pratap Singh, J
Bhola Ram – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Posts – Respondent
Original Application | Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Jayant Kr. Karn
For the Respondents: Shri Bindhyachal Rai, Addl. CGSC
Denial of pensionary benefits to temporary employees based on non-regularization is unjust when sufficient continuous service exists, as clarified by applicable rules and precedents.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 - Rule 10 - Claim for pension as Temporary Group ‘D’ employee - Applicant engaged as Night Guard in 1984, conferred temporary status in 1989, contested denial of pension due to non-regularization - Respondents alleged non-regularity barring eligibility for benefits - Court held applicant entitled to pension benefits due to long service and legal entitlement under relevant rules, despite failure of respondents to regularize - Directives issued to settle pension with arrears. (Paras 54-58)
(B) Employment - Status of Temporary Employees - Temporary status granted to casual labourers does not automatically lead to regularization; however, those with significant continuous service are entitled to benefits as if they were regular employees, including pension rights. (Paras 10, 19-24)
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:-
“1. The Respondent Authorities may be directed to sanction pension/Gratuity and all the other retiral benefits to applicant at the earliest and to make payments of the same to the applicant along with statutory interest thereupon.
2. The cost of the litigation incurred in filing the instant OA, may be awarded upon the respondents.
3. Any other relief/reliefs as the applicant is entitled and Your Lorships may deem fit and proper in the ends 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 Night Guard vide appointment order dated 09.01.1984 (Annexure A-2) and assumed his duties w.e.f. 10.01.1984. He was conferred temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989 and after completion of 3 years’ from TS, he was confirmed as Temporary Group ‘D’ employee w.e.f. 30.11.1992 vide order dated 23.08.2001 (Annexure A-3). Having continuously worked on the post with his ability, he was provided all the facilities of a regular employee in terms of OM dated 23.01.2012 issued by DoP&T and circulated by Department of Posts vide letter dated 01.02.2012 (Annexure A-4 series). In 2017-18, applicant was asked to submit his willingness for promotion to MTS but was further asked that since he has reached to maximum salary, no financial benefits would be given to him and, as such, he should not opt for such promotion.
4. After applicant’s retirement, his retiral benefits as well as pension is not being finalized. Aggrieved, applicant approached office of Superintendent of Post Office, Champaran Division, Motihari time and again and on 04.02.2019 sent a representation by registered post regarding payment of retiral benefits, i.e., DCRG, Payment of pension etc. Though his aforesaid representation has not been decided by the respondents but one of employees of the respondents asked him that as his promotion in 2017-18 was not finalized, hence, he would not get pension and other pensionary benefits. Meaning to say, his pensionary benefits are being denied on account of non-regularization of his services/refusal of promotion, which is erroneous and against the rules on the subject.
5. Applicant started his service in January, 1984, conferred temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989 and on completion of 3 years service after temporary status, he became at par with temporary status Group ‘D’ employee w.e.f. 30.11.1992. On retirement w.e.f. 31.01.2019, the length of service of applicant as Temporary Group-D is more than 26 years and, as such, he is eligible and entitled for pension and all other pensionary benefits. Despite having served the respondent department for 34 years, denial of pension and pensionary benefits is against the provisions of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 as also against the judicial precedent on the subject.
6. Per contra, opposing the claim of the applicant, respondents have filed written statement and stated that applicant was not a regular departmental employee governed by Pension Rules, 1972. He was initially engaged as contingent paid (Casual Labour) Night Guard. As per instructions contained in Dte. New Delhi Circular dated 30.11.1992 and 12.04.1991 issued in compliance of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, applicant including other casual labour was conferred upon temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989 and on completion of three years continuous service after conferment of temporary status Group ‘D’ employee granted him all the benefits as admissible to regular employee Group ‘D’ employee. However, in paragraph 7 of the aforesaid letter it is clearly mentioned that “conferment of temporary status does not automatically imply that c
