Indu Devi vs The Union Of India & Ors.

Heard Mr. Siyaram Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Ms. Kanak Verma, learned CGC for the Union of India and the learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition has sought inter alia following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:-

The original petitioner has died during the pendency of the present writ petition and his wife has been substituted at his place.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the original petitioner had rendered his continuous services for decades till he attained the age of superannuation. Learned counsel has referred to the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 [hereinafter to be referred as the “CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965”] and submitted that a temporary government servant, who retires upon attaining the age of superannuation after rendering not less than the prescribed period of 10 years service, shall be governed by the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as the “CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972”) and shall be entitled to superannuation pension, gratuity and family pension. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the recent judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Bhikhani Devi & Etc. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2026 INSC 612.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the petitioner was working as a Contingent Packer but he had not been appointed against any sanctioned post of Contingent Packer, therefore, he could not be be treated as a Group ‘D’ employee, i.e., an MTS employee, in the Department of Posts. On these grounds, the learned counsel submitted that the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case of Bhikhani Devi (supra).

I find it proper to reproduce paragraph no.23 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no.1 to 3, which inter alia is as under : -

Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, considering the information as contained in the present writ petition and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents no.1 to 3, I find that the petitioner was conferred temporary status w.e.f. 01.01.2009 by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Samastipur Division, Samastipur, vide memo no.A/Cont.Staff/87-88/Ch-II dated 16.07.2012 and he attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2019 and in this background the petitioner claims that he has rendered his services for over more than ten years.

Now the question arises as to whether the claim of the petitioner that he had rendered his services for more than ten years is factually correct and his claim is squarely covered by the judgment passed in the case of Bhikhani Devi (supra) ?

To answer the above, I find it appropriate to take notice first the admitted position of the said case before the Apex Court, as recorded in paragraph no. 19 which is inter alia as under:

The Apex Court, while considering in above background relied upon its earlier judgments passed in cases of Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327 and Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, thereafter, the Court also referred to the observations made in the case of Indian Council of Agricultural Research & Another v. Santosh, reported in (2006) 11 SCC 157 and, upon consideration of same, held that a temporary status casual labourer, upon completion of three years of continuous service under temporary status, becomes entitled to the benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees, including pensionary benefits under Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, subject to fulfilment of the prescribed eligibility criteria. Such entitlement is not dependent upon formal regularization. The absence of an order of regularization, therefore, cannot by itself be a ground to deny pensionary or retiral benefits otherwise admissible under the applicable rules. The relevant para is inter alia is reproduced hereinafter:

I find that a temporary government servant is not excluded from the purview of pension in accordance with CCS (Temporary) Service Rules, 1965 after having rendered more than ten years of service and is required to be governed by CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 once he becomes entitled to superannuation pension, gratuity and family pension.

The Superintendent, Department of Indian Post, Samastipur Division, Samastipur is directed to take a final decision in respect of payment of pension, gratuity and other retiral dues to the deceased employee and payable to the petitioner, who is his wife and fix family pension of the petitioner, who has been substituted in place of the original petitioner.

With the above observation/direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.