The principle of delay and laches applies where an applicant fails to challenge a prior decisive order, leading to dismissal of subsequent claims.

ORDER

The applicant herein is the wife of deceased worker Late Shri Ravi Shankar, who was appointed as casual worker on 25.05.1987 and assigned the temporary status w.e.f. 01.01.1994. After temporary status was assigned to him, the husband of the applicant gave his nomination for GPF in favour of his wife i.e. the applicant herein. Unfortunately, the applicant died while working under the respondents on 03.03.2003. After the death of her husband, the applicant herein approached the respondents for grant of family pension. With respect to her claim, she preferred various representations, the last being dated 31.03.2023. (Annexure-A/6). However, the respondents in an arbitrary manner, rejected the same vide impugned order dated 25.09.2023 (Annexure-A/1). Aggrieved, the applicant has filed the instant OA, seeking the following relief(s) :-

“8.1 Call for the service records of the applicant‟s husband.

8.2 Examine whether the impugned order is in conformity of the orders on the subject matter of grant of family pension to the spouse of the temporary status employees and if not quash and set aside impugned order dated 25.09.2023.

8.3 Direct the respondents to grant family pension and all other benefits to the applicant, treating her husband, late Sh. Upender Rai at par with temporary Group „D‟ employees post 3 years after grant of temporary status to him.

8.3 Award the interest @10% p.a. on the arrears of pension and retirement benefits as aforesaid.

8.4 Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the instant OA is squarely covered by the various decisions of the Tribunal, including the OA No.2500/2024, OA No.1631/2016 and OA No.1842/2016, whereby the respondents were directed to grant family pension in view of Rule 10(2) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 to the applicants therein. Though the aforesaid OAs were challenged by the respondents before the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition Nos. 5907/2017, 1767/2018 and 3565/2019, the Hon‟ble High Court vide its order dated 06.01.2020 (Annexure-A/8) dismissed the aforesaid Writ Petitions upholding the decision of the Tribunal in favour of the applicants therein. The said decision of the Hon‟ble High Court was challenged before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, and vide its order dated 04.05.2022, the Hon‟ble Apex Court dismissed all the SLPs, again upholding the decision of the Tribunal.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is entitled for grant of family pension in view of Rule 10(2) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. She also relied upon Condition V of the OM issued by the respondents vide their letter dated 27.06.1994 in pursuance to DOP&T OM dated 10.09.1993, which says that on completion of three years continuous service after assignment of temporary status, a person would be treated as par with Temporary Group-D employee for GPF and other benefits and, therefore, the applicant is entitled for grant of family pension.

4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon a decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in M.L. Patil (Dead) Through LRs Vs. The State of Goa and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 537.

5. After issuance of notice on 07.12.2023, the respondents filed their reply opposing the OA. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is true that the deceased worker was assigned the temporary status and allotted GPF number and regular scale of pay, however, before he could be absorbed as a regular worker, he passed a