CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH Circuit Bench at Shimla, the 9 t h day of January, 2026 CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)

Sh. Rattan Chand S/o late Sh. Sant Ram, age 7 1 y ears, r etired a s Chowkidar, O/o Superintendent of Post Offices, Dehra D ivision, D hera (R/o VPO Rakkar, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh - 177043)

...Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Rishav Sharma)

VERSUS

1. Union of India through its Secretary, Govt. of I ndia, D epartment o f Posts, Ministry of Information and Technology, New Delhi-110011.

2. Chief Post Master General, H.P. Circle, Shimla-171001 (H.P.)

3. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Dehra Division, Dehra (H.Р.).

…Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. Bharat Bhushan)

O R D E R

Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):

1. The present Original Application filed under S ection 1 9 o f t he Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is directed against i naction o f t he respondents in not extending the benefit of the judgment o f P ainu R am & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 30.01.2014. T he a pplicant has prayed for relief as under:

“ i) That the complete record of the case be called for;

ii) That respondents be directed to grant pension t o t he a pplicant w.e.f. 01.04.2013 alongwith all consequential benefits l ike a rrears o f pension including interest and by extending him b enefit o f d ecision rendered by this Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Painu Ram.

iii) That this Hon'bie Tribunal may also pass a ny o ther O rder, Direction in favour of the applicants which it m ay d eem f it i n t he peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

iv) That the cost of the application may also be a warded i n f avour o f the applicant.”

2. Facts of the case in brief are as follows. The a pplicant w as i nitially engaged in the respondent Department of Posts a s a p art t ime Chowkidar in 1983. I t is pleaded that although he w as d esignated a s a casual labourer/part-time worker, he continuously d ischarged d uties o f Chowkidar and performed work from 05:00 P .M. t o 0 9:00 A .M., effectively rendering 16 hours of service per day, w hile b eing p aid o nly for 5 hours of duty.

3. The Department of Posts introduced a Scheme d ated 1 2.04.1991, made effective from 29.11.1989, providing for conferment o f T emporary Status upon casual labourers who had completed 2 40 d ays o f s ervice i n a year. The Scheme further provided for extension o f b enefits a t p ar with regular Group-D employees, as clarified t hrough O ffice Memorandum dated 30.11.1992. The applicant c laims t hat d espite fulfilling the eligibility conditions, he was initially d enied t he b enefit o f conferment of Temporary Status.

4. Aggrieved, the applicant approached this T ribunal i n O A N o. 781/HP/2001 and OA No. 881/HP/2010 seeking g rant o f t emporary status, and ultimately, in light of the decision given b y t his T ribunal, t he applicant w as granted temporary status at par with G roup D e mployees w.e.f. 29.11.1989 along with payment of arrears f or t he p eriod 11.04.2009 to 30.06.2011. It is pleaded that thereafter, t he a pplicant continued to discharge his duties and was subsequently t ransferred t o Head Office, Barsar, where he worked to the s atisfaction o f t he department.

5. The applicant continued in service and ultimately s uperannuated on 31.03.2013 upon attaining the age of 60 years a s T emporary S tatus Group-D employee. It is the case of the applicant t hat d espite r endering more than 30 years of service and retiring from service a fter c onferment of Temporary Status, the respondents failed to grant p ension a nd o ther retiral benefits.

6. The applicant submitted representation(s) t o t he r espondents seeking grant of pensionary benefits on the ground t hat s imilarly situated employees who had been conferred Temporary S tatus u nder the same Scheme were granted pension and retiral b enefits. H owever, no action was taken by the respondents. The applicant t hereafter