IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

114 CWP-9621-2026 DATE OF DECISION: 01.04.2026 INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND OTHERS …..Petitioners Versus SANTO DEVI AND ANOTHER ... Respondents CWP-9625-2026 INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND OTHERS …..Petitioners Versus KIRAN BALA AND ANOTHER ... Respondents CWP-9627-2026 INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND OTHERS …..Petitioners Versus BALBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER ... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Brij Mohan Vinayak, Advocate and Mr. Kunal Vinayak, Advocate for the petitioners.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL)

1. All the petitions, the details of which are mentioned in the heading, involve common point of law and common set of facts, hence, they are being dealt together. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CWP-9621-

2026.

2. In the present petition, the challenge is to the common order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench (for short – ‘the Tribunal’) wherein the benefit of pension/family pension as the case may be, have been given in favour of the private respondents. Certain facts may be noticed for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand.

3. The private respondent in the present writ petition is the widow of ex- employee of petitioner No.2 who was working as casual labourer starting from the year 1980 onwards. In the year 1993, an office memorandum was issued by the petitioner on 10.09.1993 that any employee who has worked for a period of one year, will be granted temporary status w.e.f. 01.09.1993. The said benefit was granted to the husband of the private respondent vide order dated 03.02.1995. The concerned ex-employee continued working on temporary status till the date he unfortunately died while in service on 07.08.2009. Keeping in view the fact that none of these ex-employees in all the three petitions were regular employees, the employees concerned were either not given the pensionary benefits or where the employees who unfortunately died on temporary status, their family was not given the retiral benefits/family pension.

4. A claim was raised for the grant of pension/family pension as the case may be which was rejected by the petitioners which led to the filing of the original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal after appreciating the facts as well as the law, held that once an employee has worked for more than three decades, even on a temporary status, such an employee will be treated as a regular employee on the date of the retirement/date of death for the grant of retiral benefits including pension or the family pension as the case may be. The said judgment is impugned in the present bunch of petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners argues that the issue raised in the present petition was also raised earlier in case titled Indian Council of Agricultural Research and another Vs. Santosh in Civil Appeal No.4499 of 2006 decided on 16.10.2006 wherein, it was held that there is no deeming provision for regularization to the casual labour merely on the basis of length of service rendered on temporary status hence, the grant of retiral benefits to the temporary employee is not maintainable. The said judgment has not been followed by the Tribunal while granting the benefit.

6. It may be noticed that though, the judgment in Santosh (supra) does not grant the said benefit but, the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Yashwant Hari Katakkar Vs. Union of India and others, (1996) SCC 113 was not noticed wherein it was held that a Government employee who was not made permanent for 18 years and 06 months and in case such employee is not granted the pensionary benefits on the ground that he is not a permanent employee, will be travesty of justice. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced as u