Temporary status can lead to entitlement for post-retiral benefits under specific rules, affirming rights for employees treated as regular despite lack of formal regularization.

ORDER

Heard Shri Manish Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents and with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is being disposed of at the Admission stage.

2. The instant Original Application, Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 has been filed by the Applicant for the following reliefs:-

8. (i). Issue an order or directions commanding the respondents to make payment of Pension and all other Post Retiral benefits to the applicant due treating him a regular group 'D' employee, with all other consequential benefits.

8 (ii) Issue a further order or directions commanding the respondents to make payment of 18% interest to the Applicant on delayed payment on post retiral benefits.

8 (iii) Issue any other and further order or direction/s; which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances existing in the present case.

8 (iv) Award the cost of the O.A. in favour of the Applicant.

3. The fact as reflects from the records of the Original Application that the applicant was initially appointed/engaged as a Contingency Paid Chaukidar on 14.04.1986. Vide letter dated 04.10.1991, he was granted temporary status and was also allowed minimum pay in the pay admissible to regular Group D employee including all the allowances as admissible as per Rule. The applicant got retired from the post of Contingency Paid Chaukidar w.e.f 31.07.2022 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years.

4. In Counter reply, the respondents have denied the claims of the applicant and submitted that the applicant was granted the benefit only as per with temporary status of Group D. He was not regularized on the post of Group D till his retirement. Hence he is not entitled for pensionery benefits on his retirement, as per departmental rules.

5. In Rejoinder, the applicant has contradicted the facts mentioned in the Counter reply and stated that the applicant was in a regular pay scale admissible in a regular Group ‘D’ employee. The applicant has completed more than 32 years of satisfactory and continuous services and after attaining the age of superannuation, he got retired on 31.07.2022. Under the circumstances, the applicant is entitled for all post-retiral benefits in terms of the provisions of Rule 154(b) of the Manual.

6. Shri Manish Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is entitled for all service benefit including the pension etc. w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that in the identical case, this Tribunal passed the order dated 28.07.2009 in Original Application No. 1626/2005 ( Shyam Lal Shukla Vs. Union of India and Others), whereby the Original Application was allowed and direction was issued to the respondents to the effect that services of the employee is deemed to be regularized and treated as regular employee of the department and the employee are entitled for all post retiral benefit as per the relevant statutory rules in force, which was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment dated 23.12.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.60272/2009 (Union of India and Ors. Vs. Shyamlal Shukla). Against which, SLP (C) No.12264 was preferred by the Union of India and the Apex Court has also upheld the order of Tribunal as well as High Court vide judgment dated 06.08.2012.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the order passed in Shyam Lal’s case taking into the consideration the order dated 02.09.2005 passed this Tribunal in OA No. 917/2004 ( Chandi Lal Vs. U.O.I & ors.). Against which, a Writ Petition No.11297/2006 was filed, which was also dismissed by Allahabad High Court vide judgment dated 02.03.2007, which too was confirmed by Supreme Court vide order dated 03.03.2008 passed in SLP (Civil)--------/2008 (CC 3248/2008).

9. The learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on