Mahender Singh vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And Ors

The applicant Sh. Mahender Singh was appointed as muster roll beldar on 14.07.1985 with the respondent organization and was granted temporary status w.e.f. 01.06.1989. He retired on 31.07.1995. The applicant claims that since he has worked for 10 years continuously he is entitled to pension. He has prayed that his pension be fixed as on 31.07.1995 and revised in view of the successive Pay Commissions.

The respondents have denied the claim of the applicant. They have stated that the applicant was appointed on muster roll on 14.07.1985 and granted temporary status w.e.f. 01.06.1989. Since he retired in 1995, he did not fulfill the requirement of ten years regular service to qualify for pension. They have stated that gratuity was paid to the applicant under the Gratuity Act and pension is paid under CCS (Pension) Rules under which he is not eligible for pension. They have pointed out that Clause 49 (1) of CCS (Pension) Rules provides for minimum of ten years of service to qualify for pension, which reads as under:-

"49. Amount of Pension

(1) In case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of service gratuity shall be calculated at the rate of half month's emoluments for every completed six monthly period of qualifying service."

Heard Sh. Mahesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sh. Anuj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the decision of the Hon;'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Ghanshyam Chand Sharma vs. Delhi Power Company & Ors. [WP(C) No.3147/2003 decided on 21.03.2017] in support of their claim that half the period of service as causal labour with temporary status has to be added for calculating the total qualifying years of service for purposes of pension. The Hon'ble Court held as under:-

"8. Though Rule 2 seems to suggest that persons who are in casual/daily rated employment and persons who are paid from contingencies would not be included in the pension rules, however, this Rule 2 has to be read with Rule 13 as also the Government of India OMs on the subject reproduced above and which show that 50% of the period of casual service of a employee has to be included to the regular period of service of an employee for determining qualifying years of service for the purpose of pension provided the casual employment merges into a regular service employment.

I therefore hold that half of the service period of the petitioner with the respondent from 9.7.1968 to 22.12.1971 i.e a period of one year 10 months and about eight days have to be included to the period of service of the petitioner with the respondent from 22.12.1971 to 10.7.1990. Once, 50% of the period from 9.7.1968 to 22.12.1971 is added to the period of service of the petitioner with the respondent from 22.12.1971 to 10.7.1990 then, admittedly, the petitioner has more than 20 years of service with the respondent and therefore petitioner complies with the requirement of 20 years of qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension as per Rule 48-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules. I, therefore, hold that petitioner had 20 years of service and hence had the qualifying years of service for grant of pension."

It has clearly been held that 50% of the period of casual service of an employee has to be added to the regular period of service of an employee for determining qualifying years of service for the purpose of pension provided the casual employment merges into a regular service employment.

The respondents have also cited the decision of this Tribunal in the matter of Daya Nand vs. Union of India [OA No.2691/2015 decided on 27.07.2015] wherein the Coordinate Bench held as under:-

"8.In view of the above position, we dipose of this OA with the direction to the respondents verifiy the factual position started by the applicant with regard to the service rendered by him and to count 50% of casual service and the entire 100% temporary status casual service rendered by the applicant as qualifying service for the purpose of granting him the benefits under MACP and benefits under the pensionary rules. The respondents shall also pass appropriate orders implementing the aforesaid directions within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no orders to costs."

It clearly emerges from the two rulings cited that only 50% of service on muster roll can be taken as qualifying service for pension which when added to the applicant's period as regular employee, does not total upto 10 years. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant is entitled to pension.

In light of the above discussion, the OA has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. MA No.1717/2018 seeking condonation of delay also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.