Ram Nakshatra Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors.

Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as a Contingency Paid Chowkidar on 03.08.1974 under respondent no.4 at Hetimpur Post office, Deoria. He was granted temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989 and his services were confirmed vide order dated 04.05.1998 as MTS. During his service, he was granted earned leave, casual leave, annual increments, Bonus and LTC facilities. GPF contributions were also deducted from his salary. After attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31.07.2015. The applicant submitted a representation dated 12.07.2016 and a reminder dated 17.11.2017 seeking pension and other retiral benefits stating that he has rendered more than 40 years of regular service, but no decision was taken on his representation. The applicant thereafter filed O.A./353/2018 before this Tribunal which was decided on 11.04.2018 with the direction to decide the representation of the applicant. The applicant also filed CP/297/2018 when the order was not complied with after which the respondents passed the impugned order dated 07.05.2019 rejecting the claim of the applicant. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present OA seeking grant of pension and all other retiral benefits from the date of his retirement. The applicant claims that since he was appointed as Contingency Paid Chowkidar on 03.08.1974 and completed his entire service without any break, he should be treated as a regular employee. He has further relied upon Clause 154(a) of the Posts and Telegraphs Establishment Manual and claims that he is entitled to retiral benefits at par with other Group ‘D’ employees.

The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have stated that the applicant was engaged as a Contingency Paid Chowkidar with effect from 03.08.1974 on daily-wage basis. He was granted temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989. Thereafter, he got group ‘D’ status from 29.11.1992. However, according to the respondents, the applicant was not regularised in the Group ‘D’ cadre. Therefore, the respondents contend that he is not entitled to retirement benefits applicable to permanent Group ‘D’ employees.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant had been granted temporary status, his services were also confirmed and on completion of more than 40 years of service without break, he shall be deemed to be a regular employee and as per clause 154(a) of Post and Telegraph establishment manual, he is entitled for the retiral benefits at par with other Group ‘D’ employees. He retired from service on 31.07.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation. However, despite having rendered about 40 years of continuous service, the respondents have denied him pension and other retiral benefits. It was further submitted that mere fact that the applicant was not formally regularised in the Group ‘D’ cadre cannot be a ground to deny him pensionary and other retiral benefits, particularly when he was granted temporary status and was subsequently confirmed as MTS. Thus, he argued that the OA be allowed and the respondents be directed to grant pension and all other retiral benefits to the applicant by taking into account his continuous service from 03.08.1974.

Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the claim of the applicant and submitted that the applicant was initially engaged as a Contingency Paid Chowkidar on daily-wage basis with effect from 03.08.1974. He was only granted temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989 and was granted group ‘D’ status w.e.f. 29.11.1992 but due to want of vacancy, he was never regularised in the Group ‘D’ cadre.Therefore, his service cannot be treated as regular service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits applicable to regular Group ‘D’ employees. It was further submitted that the applicant cannot claim the benefit of regular service only on the ground that he had worked for a long period. The fact that the applicant was granted certain service benefits during his engagement does not confer upon him the status of a regular employee. Learned counsel also submitted that since the applicant was not regularised in the Group ‘D’ cadre. He was only given group “D” status from 29.11.1992. Therefore, his claim for pension and other retiral benefits by counting his service from 03.08.1974 is not sustainable. Thus he argued that the applicant is not entitled to claim pension and other retiral benefits by treating his entire service from 03.08.1974 as regular service. The OA is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the record carefully.

The facts which are not in dispute are that the applicant was appointed as a Contingency Paid Chowkidar on 03.08.1974 and was granted temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989. It is also not disputed that the applicant continued to work in the department for more than 40 years without any break and was granted various service benefits, including earned leave, casual leave, annual increments, Bonus, LTC and GPF facility. He was thereafter given the group D status w.e.f. 29.11.1992. He ultimately retired from service on 31.07.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation.

The main objection of the respondents is that the applicant was never formally regularised in the Group ‘D’ cadre and, therefore, his cannot be counted for pensionary benefits. In my opinion, the said objection cannot be accepted. The applicant was not merely a daily-wage worker. He was granted temporary status by the department itself in the year 1989 and thereafter continued in service for more than two decades. The respondents also extended various service benefits to him during this period. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant's service was discontinued at any stage or that his work was found unsatisfactory.

Post and Telegraph Ministerial Manual Establishment Rule 154

The applicant by placing reliance upon para 154(a) of the Manual of Appointment and Allowances of Officers of the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department contended that he is entitled for all retiral benefits as may be admissible to comparable staff in the regular group ‘D’ employee.

In the case of Union of India and others Vs. Shyam Lal Shukla and another in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60272 of 2009 decided on 23.12.2011, Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad has observed as under:-

In O.A No. 917/04 – Chandi Lal Vs. U.O.I and Ors. decided on 2.9.2005 by CAT, Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal, the applicant was working in the Department of Posts on work charged establishment w.e.f. 15.4.1982. He was granted temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989 and thereafter, he was brought on the pay scale of Group ‘D’ employee and also accorded service benefits admissible to the Group ‘D’ employee. Though no formal order of the regularisation was issued in the said case, the Tribunal held that the applicant was entitled to pension treating him a Group ‘D’ regular employee. The Writ Petition No. 11297/2006 filed against the said order was dismissed by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court vide order dated 02.03.2007 and Hon’ble Supreme Court also upheld the order of Tribunal and High Court vide order dated 03.03.2008 passed in SLP (Civil) case No. 11297/2006 (CC 3248/2008).

The facts and circumstances of above noted cases are almost similar to the case in hand. In the instant case, the applicant was appointed as Contingent Paid Chowkidar on 03.08.1974 and he was extended temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989 and thereafter continued in service without any break. The respondents themselves permitted him to continue in service till his superannuation and subsequently confirmed him as group ‘D’. Therefore, it would not be proper to deny him pensionary benefits merely because no separate formal order of regularisation in Group ‘D’ cadre was issued.

It is also important that the applicant had rendered about 40 years of continuous service before his retirement. The respondents have not disputed the fact of his continuous service or the grant of temporary status. Their only objection is that there was no formal regularisation in Group ‘D’. Such a technical objection cannot, in the facts of the present case, be permitted to deprive the applicant of his pension and other retiral benefits, particularly when the applicant was treated as an employee of the department for a very long period.

Thus, relying upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble High Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the O.A. is allowed and applicant’s services shall be deemed to have been regularized, therefore, the respondents are hereby directed to ensure payment of pension and other post retiral benefits to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which an interest amount at the rate of 6% simple interest per annum should also be paid.

All associated M.A.s also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.