Chhadam vs Union Of India & Ors.

By way of the present original application filed under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 the applicant has prayed for quashing the order dated 11.02.2022 and for a direction to the respondents to treat him deemed regularized MTS at par with his junior and grant him consequential benefits of such regularization including payment of pension and other retiral benefits. Prayer has also been made to direct the respondents to pay amount of gratuity, leave encashment and pension to the applicant from the date of his retirement including arrears of pension with 12% interest .

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant, who was initially recruited as casual labour through the Employment Exchange, Varanasi and joined the service on 17.03.1977, was allowed temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1998 and he was treated Temporary Status Casual Labour (in short „TSCL‟) at par with Group „D‟ employee w.e.f. 01.12.2002, but he was never regularized. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that although the respondents regularized the services of 21 TSCL as MTS on seniority basis vide order dated 20.03.2013, the services of the applicant was not regularized whereas he was senior to them. Subsequently, the applicant reached the age of superannuation and he was retired from service as TSCL on 07.07.2015. Thereafter, the applicant preferred representation dated 30.11.2021 for payment of pension and other retiral dues treating him deemed regularized as MTS at par with his juniors. Having received no response from the respondents, the applicant has filed the instant original application.

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that despite the fact that the applicant was recruited as per the rules through Employment Exchange, his service were not regularized although more than five years juniors to him like Parsuram Singh, Ashok Kumar Sharma, Bhagwan Das, Siraj Ahmad, Daya Ram Yadav and several others, who were initially recruited as casual labour during the year 1982-83, were regularized as M.T.S. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and against the several judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the OA may be allowed and the applicant may also be treated to be deemed regularized at par with his juniors with all consequential benefits

In support of his case, the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the order dated 03.08.2018 passed by Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 659/2013 – Raghu Nath Prasad & others Vs. U.O.I & ors. In the said order, direction was given to the respondents to treat the applicants deemed regularized and pay all retiral benefits including pensionary benefits with 6% interest per annum. Learned counsel for the applicant also cited order dated 15.10.2019 passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1789/2018 – Jagbiri Devi Vs. UOI & Ors wherein the respondents were directed to treat the husband of the applicant as deemed regularized with effect from the date of death and to pay gratuity, leave encashment and family pension alongwith interest at the GPF rate. Learned counsel for the applicant also cited another judgment dated 25.04.2013 passed by Hon’ble High Court, Delhi in Writ No. 3018/2012 – Sharda Devi Vs. U.O.I & Ors, in which direction was given to the respondents to pay family pension to the widow petitioner alongwith arrears from the date of death of her husband treating the husband as regular employee though at the time of death, husband was only temporary status casual labour.

Learned counsel has further cited a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yashwant Hari Katakkar Vs. U.O.I & Ors – 1996 (7) SCC 113 wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court directed the respondents to treat the appellant as having been retired from service on 07.03.1980 after serving the Government for 18 ½ years and as such his case for grant of pension be finalized and the appellant was held entitled to all arrears of pension from the date of retirement; despite the fact that he was not permanent employee of the department. He also referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 15.05.2015 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4474/2015 – Prem Ram Vs. Managing Director, Uttarakhand Pey Jal & Nirman Nigam, Dehradun & Ors, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court has directed the respondents to regularize the services of the appellant on the analogy of his juniors with effect from the date his juniors were regularized and to release all retiral benefits in his favour by treating him to be in continuous service till the date of superannuation.

Upon notice, the respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein most of the facts of the case are accepted that the applicant was appointed as casual labour at Varanasi RMS on 08.11.1974. Thereafter, he was conferred with temporary status on 29.11.1989 after completion of continuous 240 working days and he was provided the status at par with Group „D‟ w.e.f. 01.12.2002. The respondents further contended that the services of other casual labourers were regularized as per the seniority list as casual labour and not on the basis of grading of temporary status. The gradation list corrected up to 01.07.2014 issued vide office memo no. B-1/2-12/CLTS/2014 dated 30.01.2015 which was circulated amongst the casual labourers and the applicant has also gone through the entries in the said gradation list and was satisfied with the same. No any representation was received from the applicant regarding any of his entries or seniority. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the DPC for selection on the post of MTS against 25% of the vacancies for the year 2015 to be filled from casual labourers on the basis of selection cum seniority was conducted on 06.12.2016, but the applicant was already got retired on 07.07.2015 on completion of 60 years, hence he could not be regularized on the MTS sanctioned post. Therefore, there is no illegality in the action of the respondents and the applicant is not entitled for any retiral benefit including pension and the OA may be dismissed.

Rejoinder Affidavit has been filed by the applicant where he reiterated his stand in the OA. However, he relied on the order dated 09.11.2022 in OA No. 535/2016 – Jai Prakash Asthana Vs. UOI & ors and order dated 30.11.2022 in OA No. 882/2018 – Smt. Anguri Devi Vs. UOI & Ors passed by C.A.T., Allahabad Bench wherein direction was given to the respondents to ensure payment of pension and other post retiral benefits to the applicant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date it became due till the actual payment , hence his OA may be allowed and the relief claimed may be granted to him. He has also cited other orders of this Tribunal like Vijay Laxmi & Ors. Vs. UOI, Aman Kumar Vs. UOI and Smt. Giraja Srivastava & Ors. Vs. UOI and vehemently argued that the OA may be allowed and the applicant may be given relief.

The case came up for final hearing on 22.02.2024. Shri O.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents were present and both were heard. I have carefully gone through the entire record, and considered the rival contentions.

From the record it is evident that the basic facts of the case is not denied that the applicant was granted temporary status at par with Group „D‟ employee on 29.11.1989 after completion of continuous 240 working days as required but he could not be regularized and he retired from service on 07.07.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation but his pension is not being paid by the respondents. It is settled principle of law that if a daily rated worker / casual labour or temporary employee has been given temporary status and retired as such without formality being regularized and had been working since long period without objection on any score, the said employee may acquire all antecedents of a regular employee and he should be treated as such and is accordingly entitled for pension as per rules. In this regard, a simple perusal of the order dated 09.11.2022 passed in OA No. 535/2016 (Supra), cited by the learned counsel for the applicant reveals that the applicant in that OA was appointed as temporary Mail Man in the department of Post extending all benefits including contribution of G.P.F at par with other regular employees, as contemplated under relevant rules, except for issuing formal order of regularization and he was allowed to work till he retired on 03.01.2014 on attaining the age of superannuation but he was denied the pension. Based on various judgments of Hon‟ble Apex Court, the aforesaid OA was allowed by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, which reads following: -

In another similar case, in OA No. 882/2018 – Smt. Anguri Devi Vs. UOI & Ors (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal based on several judgments of Hon‟ble Apex Court, Hon‟ble High Court and orders of this Tribunal, has allowed the OA vide order dated 30.11.2022. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid order reads as under: -

In similar circumstance cases, in OA No. 717/2020 – Vijay Laxmi & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors decided on 09.11.2022 and OA No. 1859/2010 – Maya Devi Sharma Vs. UOI & Ors decided on 08.11.2023, cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Tribunal has allowed the OA. The respondents are unable to show any contrary ruling to the citations relied by the applicant.

Thus, considering the ratio of the aforesaid judgments, which the respondents have not controverted through any better citation, as in the present case also the applicant had obtained temporary status and although he retired without regularization, but he is eligible to all retiral benefit. Hence, I have no doubt that the applicant has made out a convincing case in his favour.

Accordingly, the OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to ensure payment of pension and other post retiral benefits to the applicant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date it becomes due till the date of actual payment as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

All associated Misc. Applications stand disposed off.

No order as to costs.