Biri Singh vs Union Of India & Ors.

Learned counsel for the parties are present and heard.

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following reliefs:-

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was appointed on 12.06.1979 to the post of Contingency Paid CP Chowkidar and, after completing forty years of service, superannuated on 28.02.2019. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was granted temporary status in Group ‘D’ category on 29.11.1989 and had worked continuously with the respondents’ department. However, the retirement benefits/dues to which he is entitled have not been paid to him.Thereafter, the applicant submitted representations dated 27.10.2019 and 14.11.2024, which have not been decided till date. Learned counsel further submits that, in the meantime, the issue regarding entitlement to pensionary benefits and pension has been considered and decided by various courts, including the Hon’ble High Court. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Union of India and Others v. Shyam Lal Shukla, decided on 23.12.2011, reported in 2012 (1) ADJ 698, wherein it was held that contingency-paid employees are entitled to pension. He has further relied upon the judgment passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 788 of 2023, Ramesh Chand v. Union of India, decided on 14.08.2025, wherein an identical controversy relating to payment of pension and other benefits was adjudicated in the light of the judgment in Union of India and Others v. Shyam Lal Shukla, as well as the order of this Tribunal dated 02.09.2015 passed in O.A. No. 917 of 2004, Chandi Lal v. Union of India, which was affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court. Against the said judgment, the writ petition preferred by the applicants was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents may be directed to consider the grievance of the applicant in the light of the aforesaid judgments.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that, while working as a Contingency Paid employee, the applicant was offered promotion to the post of MTS, after due consideration. However, the said promotion was declined by the applicant. Therefore, he is not entitled to the benefits available to a regular employee. He further submits that contingency-paid employees are not regular employees.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Tribunal is of the opinion to dispose of this Original Application may with a direction to the applicant to file a fresh, comprehensive representation setting out his claim and relying upon the various judgments passed by this Tribunal and the higher courts, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Thereafter, the respondents/competent authority shall consider and decide the said representation with regard to pension and other consequential benefits, in accordance with law and applicable rules, keeping in view the judgments pronounced by the various courts, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the said representation.

Accordingly, the instant Original Application stands disposed of with the above directions.

It is made clear that this Tribunal has not entered into the question of delay, laches, or the merits of the applicant’s claim. All issues are left open for consideration by the respondents.

All pending M.A.s, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.