AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
The present O.A. has been filed by the applicants seeking the following reliefs:-
“(a)Directing the respondents to place the relevant records to the present O.A. before their Lordships for pertaining the proper adjudication in the matter in the interest of justice.
(b)Quash and setting aside the impugned consequential order dt. 29.01.25 (Annexure A/1) further directing the respondents to consider and finalize the case of the applicants for the grant of retirement benefits including pension admissible to the applicants in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject more particularly the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jaggo & Ors. Vs UOI & ors. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 further reiterated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Birma Devi & Ors. Vs UOI & Anr., WP(C) No. 9480/2021 decided on 03.02.25 with all other consequential benefits namely the arrears of retirement benefits with interest etc.
(c)Allowing the OA of the applicants with all other consequential benefits and costs.
(d)Any other fit and proper relief may also be granted."
The brief facts as narrated by the learned counsel for the applicants are:-
The applicants were engaged by the respondents as casual labourers at the Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute (IGFRI), Jhansi, on different dates during the year 1972, after their names were sponsored through the Employment Exchange. They continued to render satisfactory and uninterrupted service and were granted Temporary Status w.e.f. 01.09.1993 under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status & Regularization) Scheme, 1993, vide office order dated 25.04.1995.
The applicants had been continuously pursuing their claim for regularization. According to them, similarly situated casual labourers, including juniors, were regularized from time to time, whereas they could not be regularized on the ground of non-availability of vacancies. The applicants accordingly approached the CAT, Allahabad Bench in O.A. Nos. 817/2011 and 403/2011 seeking parity with regular Group 'D' employees and consequential service benefits.
During the pendency of the said proceedings, the respondents issued an order dated 21.08.2012 extending the applicable Group 'D' pay scale to temporary-status employees. Further, the DoP&T issued O.M. dated 26.02.2016 clarifying the entitlement of casual labourers with temporary status to contribute to GPF and providing for counting of 50% of temporary-status service towards retirement benefits upon regularization. The said O.M. was also endorsed by the respondents on 22.03.2016.
O.A. Nos. 817/2011 and 403/2011 were dismissed by the CAT, Allahabad Bench on 15.03.2018, with the following observations:
“12........ However, it is made clear that this order will not be a bar on the respondents to consider regularization of the applicants with the approval of DOPT/Government of India as per the applicable rules, in the light of the DOPT letter dt. 16.10.2014 as extracted in para 9 of this order......”
In the meanwhile, the applicants superannuated on different dates, but without any retirement benefits except gratuity. Their cases were stated to have been processed with DoP&T for approval, but no effective decision followed.
The applicants thereafter filed O.A. No. 1962/2019 seeking retirement benefits, including pension admissible to them in accordance with the relevant rules/instructions. The Tribunal vide order dated 28.08.2020 directed the respondents to consider and decide their representations within three months. However, the Director, IGFRI rejected their claim vide order dated 06.01.2021. The applicants challenged the said order in O.A. No. 302/2021, followed by R.A. No. 138/2023.
Pursuant to the subsequent directions of the Tribunal, the respondents passed the consequential order dated 29.01.2025 again rejecting the applicants' claim, which has been challenged in the present O.A. The Execution Application filed by them, i.e. M.A. No. 503/2025, was disposed of on 06.02.2025 with liberty to the applicants to challenge the same in fresh proceedings.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants had rendered almost 35-40 years or more of continuous, satisfactory and unblemished service under the respondents after having initially been engaged through the Employment Exchange. Despite their long service and grant of temporary status, they were never regularized and were ultimately retired without pensionary and other retirement benefits. He contended that continued engagement of the applicants for such a long period while denying them regularization merely on the ground of non-availability of sanctioned posts amounted to exploitation and was legally unjustified.
Learned counsel further submitted that the applicants were entitled to the benefit of the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status & Regularization) Scheme, 1993 and the subsequent DoP&T instructions. In particular, reliance was placed upon the DoP&T O.M. dated 26.02.2016 concerning GPF and pensionary benefits of casual labourers with temporary status. He argued that the respondents themselves had adopted the said clarification and, therefore, could not disregard the applicants' claim for retirement benefits.
He further argued that the respondents had failed to comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal in the earlier proceedings. According to him, the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 did not properly consider the applicants' pleadings, the relevant rules and instructions, as well as the judicial precedents relied upon by them and is, therefore, a non-speaking, unreasoned and cryptic order passed without proper application of mind.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that persons who had rendered long and continuous service could not be denied appropriate service/retirement benefits merely by describing them as temporary or casual labourers. In support of his contention, he has specifically relied upon the following case laws:
Bhikhani Devi etc. vs Union of India & Ors., 2026 INSC 612;
Jaggo & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors., SCC OnLine SC 3826, followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Birma Devi & Ors. vs Union of India & Anr. in WP(C) No. 9480/2021 decided on 03.02.2025;
Yashwant Hari Katakkar & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors., (1996) 7 SCC 113;
Jacob M. Puthuparambil & Ors. vs Kerala Water Authority & Ors., JT 1990 (4) SC 27;
High Court of Delhi judgment in Kuntesh & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors. in WP(C) No. 10013/2019;
ICAR & Anr. vs Sushila & Anr. in WP(C) No. 13695/2024, dated 30.09.2024.
Learned counsel accordingly submitted that the impugned consequential order dated 29.01.2025 is arbitrary, contrary to the law and applicable rules/instructions and, hence, liable to be quashed. He prayed that the respondents be directed to reconsider and finalize the applicants' claim for retirement benefits, including pension and consequential arrears with interest, in accordance with the applicable rules and the judicial precedents relied upon by the applicants.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, placing reliance upon the averments made in their counter affidavit, submitted that present O.A. is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as the same is devoid of any merit and hence legally unsustainable. It is submitted that applicants’ request for pension under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 has rightly been rejected vide order dated 29.01.2025 as per the rules and policy in respect thereof. Rule 2 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules explicitly restricts pensionary benefits to regular government servants. The Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1993 also provide for pension only in respect of temporary employees who had been regularized. Thus, there is nothing wrong and mala fide in the impugned order passed by the Respondent department and, as such, needs no interference by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
He further submitted that the applicants were initially engaged as casual labourers on contractual/daily-wage basis and were subsequently granted temporary status pursuant to the Scheme for Grant of Temporary Status and regularisation of Casual Workers, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) vide OM dated 10.09.1993 and adopted by the respondents vide office order dated 25.04.1995. The applicants were granted temporary status with effect from 01.09.1993.
He also submitted that conferment of temporary status did not confer any right of regular appointment or absorption. Under the Scheme, casual labourers with temporary status could be brought on the permanent establishment only after their selection through the prescribed regular selection process for Group ‘D’ posts. The Scheme also specifically provided that 50% of the service rendered under temporary status would be counted for retirement benefits only after regularization and that no benefits other than those expressly provided under the Scheme were admissible. In this regard, he also referred to provision 5 (v) and (vi) of the said OM, which provides as under:
5.Temporary status would entitle the casual labourers to the following benefits:-....
(v)50% of the service rendered under temporary status would be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits after their regularisation.
(vi)After rendering three years’ continuous service after conferment of temporary status, the casual labourers would be treated on par with temporary Group `D’ employees for the purpose of contribution to the General Provident Fund, and would also further be eligible for the grant of Festival Advance/Flood Advance on the same conditions as are applicable to temporary Group `D’ employees, provided they furnish two sureties from permanent Government servants of their Department.”
Learned counsel further submitted that the Scheme prescribed the manner in which Group ‘D’ vacancies were to be filled from amongst casual labourers with temporary status. However, regularization was subject to the availability of vacancies, the applicable Recruitment Rules and fulfillment of the prescribed age and educational qualifications. Despite efforts made by the respondents from time to time in accordance with the relevant DoP&T instructions, the applicants could not be regularized during their service tenure due to limited vacancies and administrative constraints.
He also drew our attention to the Ministry of Finance OM dated 05.08.1999 issuing guidelines on expenditure management – fiscal prudence and austerity, which specifies that till the review is completed, no vacant posts shall be filled up except with the approval of the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure).
He also referred to the letter dated 03.08.2011 issued by the ICAR prescribing the manner the existing casual labourers who were granted temporary status under the 1993 Scheme, endorsed vide ICAR letter dated 23.11.1994, may be regularised in accordance with para 8 of the DoPT scheme Point (iii) of the same reads as under:-
“iii.As the minimum qualification required for the recruitment of Skilled Support Staff is matriculation pass or equivalent or ITI pass, only those casual labourers (temporary status) are to be considered for regularisation who fulfil the qualification requirement.”
The learned counsel further submitted that in 2018, a Committee was ultimately constituted in 2018 for preparation of the seniority list of casual labourers with temporary status at Respondent No.4 and its RRs, who prepared the seniority list. However, by that time, the applicants had already retired on superannuation on 30.09.2018 and, therefore, could not be considered for regularization. He also pointed out that the applicants had already been paid all terminal benefits admissible to casual labourers with temporary status at the time of retirement.
He contended that since the applicants were never regularized in service, they were not entitled to pensionary or other retirement benefits applicable to regular Group ‘D’ employees. The applicants had accepted the terms and conditions of the Scheme at the time of conferment of temporary status and were bound by its provisions. Merely because they had rendered long service under temporary status, no vested or indefeasible right to regularization or pension could be claimed contrary to the Scheme and the applicable Recruitment Rules.
Learned counsel also submitted that the applicants had earlier approached the Hon’ble CAT, Allahabad by filing O.A. Nos. 817/2011 and 403/2011, seeking, inter alia, parity with regular Group ‘D’ employees and consequential service benefits, which were dismissed vide order dated 15.03.2018. Thereafter, in O.A. No. 1962/2019 and O.A. No. 302/2021, the applicants were only permitted to have their representations considered by the respondents. Pursuant thereto, the respondents passed a reasoned order dated 29.01.2025. The execution application filed by the applicants was disposed of on 06.02.2025, granting them liberty to assail the said order in accordance with law.
It is, therefore, submitted that the applicants cannot seek to reopen their already rejected claim for regularization and consequential benefits, and that the earlier adjudication also operates as a bar to the extent the same reliefs are sought to be re-agitated.
He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and, highlighting para 52 thereof, submitted that temporary, contractual, casual or daily-wage employees do not acquire a fundamental or enforceable legal right to regularization merely on account of having continued in service for a long period. Regularization cannot be directed in disregard of the constitutional scheme of public employment, the applicable Recruitment Rules and the availability of sanctioned vacancies, which has been reiterated in several judgments pronounced thereafter. He contended that no mandamus could, therefore, be issued directing the respondents to regularize the applicants or to extend them the pensionary benefits available to regular employees.
Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicants, having been granted only temporary status and having retired without being regularized, were not entitled to pension or other benefits admissible to regular Group ‘D’ employees. The present O.A. is, therefore, devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.
In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the applicant specifically pointed out that the respondents had constituted a Committee for preparation of the seniority list of casual labourers with temporary status and that the seniority list was prepared. However, the applicants were not considered for regularization only because they had already retired on superannuation, which exhibits that the applicants’ non-regularization was not due to any disqualification on their part. He also placed substantial reliance on the judgments in Bhikhani Devi (supra) and Birma Devi (supra), particularly the finding that temporary-status casual labourers cannot be denied pension merely because they were not regularized before superannuation, where the respondents themselves had not undertaken the requisite regularization exercise. The applicants specifically contended that the responsibility for conducting the regularization exercise lay with the respondents. Therefore, the absence of formal regularization cannot be used as a ground to deny pensionary benefits.
The applicants have further relied upon the decision in the case of Jaggo (supra) to challenge the respondents’ stand regarding long-term temporary service, wherein the Apex Court held that it is pernicious practice to keep persons on temporary status for years without regularisation. Such a practice has been held to contravene International Labour Standards and expose the organization to legal challenges and undermine employee monarch.
He further contended that insofar as Uma Devi is concerned, the Supreme Court has, in the case of Jaggo, noted that Uma Devi which was intended to have been a social welfare measure, aimed at avoiding backdoor appointments. However, the applicants’ engagement was not a case of “backdoor entry”; they were initially engaged through the Employment Exchange and were subsequently granted temporary status after due process. The applicants, therefore, contend that Uma Devi should not be relied upon to defeat their claim.
Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings/judgments placed on record.
It is not in dispute that the applicants were initially engaged as casual labourers after their names were sponsored through the Employment Exchange and that they were subsequently granted temporary status w.e.f. 01.09.1993 under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1993. It is also not disputed that they continued to render service for several decades and ultimately superannuated without being formally regularized. The principal defence taken by the respondents is that, under para 5(v) of the Scheme, 50% of the service rendered under temporary status could be counted for retirement benefits only after regularization and, therefore, in the absence of regularization, the applicants acquired no right to pension.
The aforesaid contention of the respondents, however, cannot be accepted now in view of the law authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhikhani Devi (supra), wherein the Apex Court considered substantially the same issue, i.e., whether a casual labourer conferred temporary status under the applicable Scheme could claim pensionary benefits on superannuation in the absence of formal regularization, and held as under:-
“67.Although, it may be correct to say that conferment of temporary status on a casual labourer under the Scheme does not ipso facto transform such employee into a temporary Government servant, however, what falls short from the aforesaid submission is that while the status of such employee continues unchanged i.e., of a ‘temporary status casual labourers’, the Scheme consciously and specifically extends to such employees benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees upon completion of three years of continuous service under temporary status. The service conditions, at this juncture, of the casual temporary status employee under the Scheme gets substantially changed and carries all the benefits that are available to temporary government employees. Therefore, while the nomenclature and category of their service status remain unchanged, the nature and extent of benefits now available to them stand significantly enlarged and aligned with those admissible to temporary Government employees, blurring the distinction between both categories as far as benefits available to them are concerned. The distinction that remains is one relating to nomenclature, formal status and mode of regularisation but not to the nature of extended benefits.
68.In other words, the Scheme nowhere provides that upon completion of three years’ service under temporary status, the employee becomes a temporary Government servant. What it specifically provides is that such employee shall be treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees for purposes of extension of admissible benefits. The parity contemplated under the Scheme is thus parity in service benefits and not identity of service status.
69.Once the Scheme and the circular dated 30.11.1992 consciously extend benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees, the Respondents cannot rely solely upon the nomenclature of ‘temporary status casual labourer’ to deny those very benefits. The entire framework of the Scheme proceeds upon extension of substantive service benefits despite continuance of the original nomenclature as temporary status casual labourer.
70.As already discussed hereinabove, the Scheme and the circular dated 30.11.1992 extend to temporary status employees all the benefits that are available to temporary Group ‘D’ employees. Now, it becomes necessary to examine the nature of pensionary benefits available to such temporary Government employees under the statutory framework.
71.The services of the temporary Government servants are governed by the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. It is not disputed that a temporary Government servant is entitled to terminal benefits including pension and on his death family pension. Rule 10(1-B) of the said Rules specifically provides that where a temporary Government servant retires on attaining the age of superannuation after rendering temporary service of not less than ten years, such employee shall be entitled to superannuation pension and retirement gratuity and on death family pension in accordance with the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Rule 10(1-B) is reproduced herein:
“10. Terminal gratuity payable to temporary Government servants. xxx xxx xxx
(1-B) In the case of a temporary Government servant who retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation or on his being declared to be permanently incapacitated for further Government service by the appropriate medical authority, after he has rendered temporary service of not less than 10 years or who has sought voluntary retirement by giving three months' notice in writing on completion of 20 years' service, provisions of sub-rule (1) shall not apply and in accordance with the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972-
(i)such a Government servant shall be eligible for the grant of superannuation, invalid or retiring pension, as the case may be, and retirement gratuity; and
(ii)in the event of his death after retirement, the members of his family shall be eligible for the grant of family pension. xxx xxx xxx”
72.As is apparent from the above, the statutory framework governing temporary Government employees itself accepts and acknowledges entitlement of pensionary benefits and that the same are not confined only to regular permanent employees but are also available to temporary Government servants upon completion of the prescribed qualifying service. The CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 thus constitute the statutory source recognising pensionary entitlement of temporary employees who have rendered specified and continuous service.
73.The contention of the Respondents that the Appellants were paid out of contingencies and therefore stood excluded from the purview of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 also cannot be accepted in the particular facts of the present case. Such exclusion may have relevance at the stage of initial engagement as casual labourers. However, the service conditions of the Appellants underwent a substantial transformation upon extension of benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees. The continued reliance by the Respondents upon the original mode of engagement, while simultaneously extending pay parity, increments, GPF facilities, leave benefits and other service entitlements akin to temporary Group ‘D’ employees, would amount to selectively accepting one part of the Scheme while disregarding the other. Such an approach would defeat the very object underlying the Scheme and the circular dated 30.11.1992. Once parity in service benefits with temporary Group ‘D’ employees is consciously extended under the Scheme, pensionary benefits flowing under Rule 10(1-B) of the Rules of 1965 cannot be selectively denied by ignoring or overlooking the statutory right.
74.The argument founded upon financial burden is equally untenable. Pension is not a matter of grace dependent upon the financial convenience of the employer, but a deferred wage earned through long years of service. As already noticed hereinabove, this Court has recognised pension as a constitutional right in the nature of property protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India as held in Jitendra Kumar Srivastava Case (supra) and it, therefore, cannot be denied on the plea of financial burden.
75.From the above discussion what follows is that when the statutory framework including CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 is read in conjunction with the Scheme and the circular dated 30.11.1992, the inescapable conclusion which emerges is that a casual labour, on being conferred the temporary status, upon completion of three years of continuous service as temporary status casual labourer becomes entitled to benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees, which necessarily includes pensionary benefits available under Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 subject, of course, to fulfilling the eligibility criteria provided therein. This right is not dependent on regularisation. What is conceived is conferring of additional benefit of previous service under the Scheme as would be available to an employee on regularisation apart from the benefits conferred under the rules becoming applicable on this now acquired new status of a regular employee.
76.The question as framed in para 32 above stands answered as follows:
‘A temporary status casual labourer would be entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation even in the absence of regularisation.’
77.What remains to be seen now is whether the Appellants, in the cases before us, fulfil the eligibility criteria under Rule 10 (1-B) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 so as to be entitled for pensionary benefits.
78.The service trajectory of Late Suraj Sah as per the material placed on record, thus falls into three distinct phases: (i) service as a casual labourer from 1972 till 29.11.1989; (ii) service as a temporary status casual labourer from 29.11.1989 till 30.11.1992; and (iii) continuance as a temporary status casual labourer with entitlement to benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees from 30.11.1992 till his superannuation on 31.12.2008.
79.From the above what emerges is that Late Suraj Sah was initially engaged as a casual labourer in the year 1972 and continued as such till 29.11.1989. During this period, he remained a daily-rated worker and was not entitled to any service benefits. Upon introduction of the Scheme, he was conferred temporary status with effect from 29.11.1989. Thereafter, upon completion of three years of continuous service under temporary status on 30.11.1992, though his formal status continued to remain that of a temporary status casual labourer, he became entitled to the benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees. Thus, while his nomenclature remained unchanged, his service benefits thereafter stood aligned with those admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees as per the Scheme and the circular dated 30.11.1992. He ultimately superannuated on 31.12.2008 while continuing as a temporary status casual labourer. So from 30.11.1992 till the date of superannuation i.e. 31.12.2008, the period being more than the minimum of 10 years, he became entitled for benefits under Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 read with the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Thereby making him entitled to grant of superannuation pension and other retirement benefits as admissible under the above rules.”
Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressly answered the question by holding that a temporary-status casual labourer is entitled to pensionary benefits on superannuation even in the absence of regularization. The Court has further clarified that the expression "after regularisation" occurring in the relevant provision of the Scheme cannot be construed in isolation so as to extinguish the underlying pensionary entitlement. According to the Apex Court, the provision relating to counting of 50% of temporary-status service after regularization operates as an additional benefit in cases where formal regularization takes place; it cannot be read as a condition precedent for the very accrual of pensionary entitlement.
The distinction sought to be drawn by the respondents on the basis of the nomenclature of the applicants also does not advance their case. The Supreme Court has categorically held that, although conferment of temporary status does not by itself transform a casual labourer into a regular Government servant, the Scheme consciously extends to such employees, after completion of the prescribed period, the benefits admissible to temporary Group 'D' employees. Thus, the parity contemplated by the Scheme is one relating to service benefits, and not necessarily identity of formal service status.
The respondents have also relied upon the decision in Umadevi (supra) to contend that no right to regularization can accrue merely by reason of long service. There can be no quarrel with the general proposition that long continuation in service, by itself, does not create an indefeasible right to regularization contrary to the constitutional scheme of public employment. However, the present controversy is not confined to a claim for regularization, as the applicants are seeking pensionary and retirement benefits after having been conferred temporary status under a specific Government Scheme. The subsequent pronouncements in Jaggo (supra) and, more particularly, Bhikhani Devi (supra), require the claim for pension to be examined in the context of the special statutory and administrative framework governing temporary-status casual labourers.
Moreover, the Delhi High Court in the case of Birma Devi (supra) has also held that temporary-status employees could not be denied pension merely because they had not been regularized before superannuation, particularly where no effective regularization exercise had been undertaken by the respondents.
Significantly, in the present case, the respondents themselves constituted a Committee in 2018 for preparation of the seniority list of casual labourers with temporary status, however, the exercise could not result in their consideration for regularization because by then they had already superannuated. In this view of the matter, the applicants cannot reasonably be faulted for the absence of formal regularization, since regularization was an administrative exercise to be undertaken by the respondents and could not have been effected unilaterally by the applicants. The reasoning adopted by the Delhi High Court in Birma Devi is apposite in this regard: where the respondents had not undertaken the requisite regularization exercise, they could not rely upon the absence of regularization as the sole ground for denying pension.
We also find that the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 proceeds substantially on the premise that the applicants' entitlement to pension was dependent upon their prior regularization. Such premise is no longer sustainable in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhikhani Devi (supra). The respondents cannot selectively rely upon the portion of the Scheme concerning regularization while disregarding the corresponding provision extending the benefits of temporary Group 'D' employees to temporary-status casual labourers. The Supreme Court has specifically held that the beneficial scheme has to be read as a whole and not in a restrictive manner so as to defeat the service benefits intended to be extended thereunder.
However, the grant of pensionary benefits would necessarily remain subject to verification of the applicants' individual service records and fulfilment of the applicable qualifying-service conditions under the governing rules. The Supreme Court in Bhikhani Devi has recognized ten years of qualifying temporary service under Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 as the relevant threshold for superannuation pension. In the present case, the applicants admittedly continued in temporary status from 01.09.1993 till their respective dates of superannuation and, therefore, the question of satisfaction of the qualifying-service requirement can be determined from their service records.
As regards the claim for arrears, the same would also have to be worked out in accordance with the applicable rules governing limitation and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Bhikhani Devi, while treating pension as a continuing cause of action, the Supreme Court confined arrears in the cases before it, wherever applicable, to the period of three years and two months preceding the filing of the respective O.As.
In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled position of law, we are of the considered view that the rejection of the applicants’ claim solely on the ground that they were not formally regularized prior to their superannuation cannot be sustained in law. The conferment of temporary status upon the applicants and their continued service thereafter entitle them to the benefits admissible to temporary Group ‘D’ employees, including pensionary benefits, subject to fulfilment of the prescribed eligibility and qualifying-service conditions. Accordingly, the applicants’ claim for pensionary and other retiral benefits deserves to be reconsidered by the respondents in accordance with the applicable rules and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhikhani Devi. However, the entitlement to arrears shall be determined separately, having regard to the respective dates of the applicants’ claims.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider and finalize the applicants' claim for pensionary and other admissible retiral benefits by examining their individual service records and determining their entitlement in accordance with the relevant rules, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhikhani Devi, and pass appropriate consequential orders.
Upon determination of the applicants’ entitlement, the admissible pensionary/retiral benefits, along with consequential arrears, shall be released to them in accordance with law. It is made clear that the applicants’ claim for arrears and interest shall also be considered in terms of the ratio laid down in Bhikhani Devi (supra).
The respondents are directed to undertake the aforesaid exercise in compliance with the aforesaid directions and release all the admissible payments to the applicants as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the same will draw interest @6% per annum from the date of accrual till the date of disbursement.
The O.A. is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.