Employees sponsored through Employment Exchange are entitled to regularization based on continuous service despite lack of formal orders; prior case law supports entitlement to pension and benefits.

ORDER

This Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following main relief(s):-

“8.1. To quash the order dated 22.03.2013 passed by the Chief Post Master General U.P, Circle, Lucknow as well as order dated 11.07.2012 passed by Post Master General Kanpur Region Kanpur (Annexure No. A-1 & A-2 respectively Compilation No.1 to this original application)

8.2 To direct to the respondents No.2 to 6 to correct gradation list and comparative charts by putting the name of the applicant at Sl. No. 1 and regularize the services of the applicant as regular group ‘D’ from the date of first fourth vacancy of Fatehpur Division vide C.P.M.G UP Circle Lucknow Memo dated 2.9.2005, applicable since 23.01.2002 i.e. from the date of recruitment of Shri Heera Lal Yadav.

8.3 To issue any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

8.4 To cost of proceeding be awarded to the applicant.

8.5 To direct the respondents to treat the services of applicant as regularized with effect from the date of regularized of services of Junior person and further they be directed to release pension and all the retiral benefits in addition to this respondents be further directed to correct the fixation of this pay pension and all the retiral benefits and make payment of arrears thereof with the interest at 12% per annum till the actual payment thereof”.

2. Since private respondents have been arrayed as respondent Nos. 7 to 13 and, as per office report dated 26.08.2025, the notices issued to them were not returned after service, the Tribunal, vide order sheet dated 29.11.2023, has presumed that service of notice upon them has been duly effected and they are not represented by any counsel nor they appeared personally to contest the case, therefore, the case is decided finally in their absence.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as C.P. Chaukidar, Malwan, R.S. Fatehpur after his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange vide memo dated 17.05.1988. Applicant was granted temporary status on 29.11.1989 vide order dated 23.5.1991 (Annexure SRA-1). In Fatehpur Division, six persons were recruited in the Group ‘D’ cadre during the period from 23.01.2002 to 30.11.2011. However, not a single casual labourer was regularized as Group ‘D’ employee in Fatehpur Division during this period, which was in violation of Para 6(1) of CPMG, U.P. Circle, Lucknow Memo dated 02.09.2005. The office of respondent No. 3 prepared a gradation list of casual labourers on 27.06.2011, showing the name of the applicant at Sl. No. 9, while he was entitled to be placed at Sl. No. 1 in view of his appointment through Employment Exchange, as per D.P. & A.R. O.M. No. 49014/19/84-Estt. (C) dated 26.10.1984. A comparative chart prepared by the DPC for the years 2009 and 2010 also showed the applicant at Sl. No. 9 instead of Sl. No. 1, contrary to the aforesaid guidelines. The applicant submitted a representation on 05.12.2011 before respondent No. 3, requesting that he be appointed as a regular Group ‘D’ employee on the basis of his appointment through Employment Exchange. However, without considering the relevant provisions mentioned by the applicant, respondent No. 3 rejected his claim solely on the basis of D.G.O.M. No. 49014/18/84-Estt. (C) dated 07.08.1985, which resulted in an unreasoned order. During the pendency of the Original Application, the applicant attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.05.2022. Since his junior