Jagdish vs Union Of India Through And Anr.

The applicant in the OA was engaged as casual labour with the respondents in 1977 and worked till 1978. After that the employee stopped going to work. Subsequently, he was again appointed on temporary casual basis on 15.11.1985 in the pay scale of Rs. 200-250 on the post of Gangman. The facts which are not in dispute are that after 4th CPC recommendation his pay was revised in the scale of pay Rs. 775-1025 and fixed at Rs. 2850/- w.e.f.01.01.2006. After implementation of 5th CPC the pay of the applicant was revised in the pay scale of Rs. 2610-3540/- and fixed at Rs. 2850/-. In 2006, implementing the recommendation of 6th CPC respondents revised the pay of the applicant in the scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.1800 and his pay was fixed at Rs.8410/-.

On 31.03.2012, the applicant was medically de-categorised and posted as Khallasi. He retired from service on 31.05.2014. The applicant states that his full service has not been counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. His grievance is that period from 15.11.1985 to 16.08.1989 has not been treated as regular service.

The respondents in their counter affidavit state that the applicant has been given the benefits as per rules of the establishment. The applicant was regularised on 17.08.1989 after which due benefits as per law had been given to him including counting of half of his qualifying service during his temporary service from 15.11.1985 to 17.08.1989 for the purpose of pension.

I have gone through the facts of the case carefully. It is not in dispute that the applicant, who was initially appointed as casual labour in 1977 stopped work in 1978. Thereafter, he was appointed only on 15.11.1985 on temporary casual basis. The respondents regularised him on 17.08.1989. For the purpose of pension, the qualifying service of the applicant has been counted from the day he was regularised on 17.08.1989. Half of qualifying service during the period when he was working on temporary service i.e. from 15.11.1985 to 17.08.1989 has been counted for purpose of pension. This is clear from the calculations available at Annexure A-2. Thus, it would appear that the pension of the applicant has been fixed correctly as per law.

In view of these facts, I find no reason to intervene in the PPO of the applicant issued by the respondents. The OA is dismissed being devoid of merits. No costs.