Entitlement to pensionary benefits for casual employees granted temporary status under administrative law principles.

ORDER

Heard Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that an identical issue has already been decided by this Tribunal in OA No. 522/2023 (Arun Kumar Tiwari vs. Union of India & Ors.), and he would be satisfied if a similar direction is issued in the present case.

3. The applicant has filed the present Original Application on 01.03.2024, Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 seeking the following main relief(s) which is stated in Para- 8 of the OA:-

“i. This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents togrant the applicantentire pensionary benefits including pension w.e.f.01.02.2024.

ii. This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the applicant pension and other post-retiral benefits on his retirement on 31.01.2024. The applicant may also allow the interest @ 12% per annum thereupon following the ratio of law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in catena of cases, affirmed by Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court.”

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the Original Application, are that the applicant was initially appointed as a Contingency Paid Chaukidar on 02.11.1982. He was granted temporary status on 29.11.1989 and was allowed the minimum pay and allowances admissible to regular Group D employees. The applicant retired from the post of Contingency Paid Chaukidar on 31.01.2024 upon reaching the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years.

3. It is stated in the Original Application that the appointment of Contingency Paid Chaukidars is regulated by Clause 154 of the "Manual for Pay and Allowances to the Officers of Postal & Telecommunication Department." Therefore, after retiring, the applicant filed a representation on 05.02.2024 seeking post-retirement benefits but received no response, leading to the filing of the present Original Application.

4. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents on 15.07.2024, denying the applicant's claim. It is stated by the respondents’ counsel that the applicant was engaged as a Contingency Paid Chaukidar at Sakrawa Sub Post Office in District Kannauj under Fatehpur Postal Division only for the payment of monthly allowances for his service. The applicant was given temporary status as a Group ‘D’ employee and was retired from service on 31.01.2024 upon reaching the age of superannuation.

5. It is also submitted by the respondents’ counsel that the applicant declined promotions to the post of MTS (formerly Group-D Cadre) in 2012 and 2019, choosing to remain a Contingency Paid Chaukidar until his superannuation i.e. on 03.01.2024. Consequently, he is not entitled to pension and retirement benefits. After his superannuation, the applicant filed Original Application No. 230/2024 seeking these benefits by referring the OA No. 710/2012 (Narensh Chandra Prajapati vs. Union of India & Ors.), but the case of the applicant is different from the N.C. Prajapati’s case because N.C. Prajapati was never offered a promotion unlike the applicant.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit denying the assertions made in the counter affidavit and reiterating the claims stated in the Original Application. In the rejoinder, the applicant has also submitted a copy of the order dated 26.07.2024 passed in OA No. 522/2023 (Arun Kumar Tiwari vs. Union of India & Ors.). The applicant states that as per the order dated 05.05.1991, a list of candidates was published granting temporary status with effect from 29.11.1989, in which th