Prahlad Prasad Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors.

By Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vijay Lakshmi, Member (J) The applicant, by means of the instant Original Application, has prayed for the following reliefs:-

I have heard Sri Santosh Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Ashutosh Shukla, learned counsel for respondents. Perused the records.

The relevant facts in brief, necessary to decide the controversy involved in this case are that the husband of the applicant Sri Prahlad Prasad Yadav, who was the original applicant of this O.A., was initially appointed as 'Contingency Paid Chowkidar' under Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, East Division, Varanasi on 26.9.1989. In the wake of judgment dated 27.10.1987 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 373 of 1986 (Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P&T Department Vs. Union of India and others) and in Writ Petition No. 302 of 1986 in re. National Federation of P&T Employees and Anr. Vs. Union of India and others, a scheme for absorbing the Casual Labours continuously working for more than one year in Post and Telegraph Department, was prepared and in pursuance of that scheme, various circulars were issued for granting temporary status to such employees. Accordingly, the original applicant was granted temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989. He, along with other similarly placed employees, was also granted certain benefits enumerated in the circular (Annexure A-3 to the O.A.), like D.A., HRA, GPF deduction etc. Unfortunately, the original applicant died on 24.3.2021 during pendency of this O.A., therefore, his wife, Kamla Devi, being his legal heir was impleaded as applicant in this O.A. vide order dated 6.8.2021.

The grievance of the applicant is that despite the fact that husband of the applicant had served the respondent's department for more than 30 years, she has been denied the family pension and other benefits. It is contended that the husband of the applicant had worked and received salary from contingency fund from 27/9/1989 to 29.11.1989 i.e. for 02 months and 02 days at initial stage. Thereafter, he got salary from the consolidated fund of Central Government from 29.11.1989 to 28.11.1992 i.e. three years and from 29.11.1992 till the date of his superannuation i.e. on 30.4.2020, as regular Group 'D' Government employee. Therefore, denial of benefits and status of regular employee to him, by the department is illegal and arbitrary and violative of Article 14,16, 21 and 311 of Constitution of India. It has been lastly contended that the applicant moved several representations with request to grant her the family pension and other emoluments admissible to her, but no action was taken by the respondents. Hence, this O.A.

The applicant in para 4.28 of the O.A. has submitted that similarly placed employees, namely Sri Gangadeen, Sri Chhangur Sharma and Sri Raj Narain Tiwari have been found entitled for such benefits and they have been given those benefits, whereas the applicant has been discriminated and the same benefits have been denied to him without any cogent reason.

Learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance upon para 154(a) of the Manual of Appointment and Allowances of Officers of the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department herein after to be referred as "Manual' in short, to contend that he is entitled for all retiral benefits as may be admissible to comparable staff in the regular group 'D' cadre. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments -

In the Counter Affidavit, filed by the respondents, it has been admitted that husband of the applicant, late Prahlad Prasad Yadav, was engaged as Contingency Paid 'Chowkidar' at Chaukhamba Post Office and he was given temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989. It is also admitted that he was provided status of Group 'D' w.e.f. 29.11.1992. There is no denial of the fact that the husband of the applicant had superannuated on 30.4.2020 and he had represented earlier too, for benefits applicable to a regular employee. However, the O.A. has been opposed on the ground that as the services of the husband of the applicant were not regularized in Group 'D' cadre, due to lack of vacancy, the family pension or any retiral benefits are not admissible to the applicant.

For the purpose of coming to a right conclusion, it is necessary to have a glance on Rule 154 (a) of the Manual, which reads as under :-

From a perusal of Rule 154 (a) of Manual, it is manifestly clear that the Chowkidar, Sweepers, Malis, Khalassis, who worked side by side with regular or with employees in Work Charged Establishment, should be brought on regular Establishment and should be treated 'regular employees'. The Rule itself has used the work 'regular employee' without any reference to formal order of regularisation.

I have perused the judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the applicant. O.A. No. 332/2016 Chhangur Sharma Vs. Union of India and others (O.A. No. 332/2016) was allowed by this Tribunal, directing the respondents to ensure the payment of pension and other retiral benefits along with 7% interest per annum to the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

The Union of India, filed a writ petition against the aforesaid order passed by this Tribunal, by means of Writ -A No. 9486 of 2018 (Union of India and others Vs. Chhangur Sharma), which was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 26.10.2018. O.A. No.330/01060/2019 The Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 32569 /2019, filed by Union of India and others Vs. Chhangur Sharma was also dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 21.10.2019. The O.A. of Chhangur Sharma was decided in terms of Raj Narain Tiwari's case, who was also similarly situated employee.

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been admitted that in compliance of the orders of this Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 1561 of 2016 and 1562 of 2016, some of CP employees of this division were given retiral service benefits at par with regular group 'D' employees.

Thus, in view of the fact that admittedly similarly placed employees have been granted pensionary benefits, treating them at par with regular Group 'D' employee, the instant O.A. also deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed in the same terms.

The respondents are directed to ensure payment of family pension and other retiral benefits to the applicant, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date, it becomes due, till the date of actual payment, expeditiously if possible, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

No order as to costs.