AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Joshi, Member (J)
The instant Original Application, Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been filed by the Applicant (Ramu Singh Yadav) for the following relief:-
i. Issue an order or directions commanding the respondents to make payment of Pension and all other Post Retiral Benefits to the Applicant due treating his regular group „D‟ employee, with all other consequential benefits.
ii. Issue a further order or directions commanding the respondents to make payment of 18% interest to the applicant on delayed payment on post retiral benefits.
The fact as reflects from the records of the Original Application that the applicant was initially appointed/engaged vide order dated 01.11.1979 at sub post office Mardah, District Ghazipur as a full time Contingency Paid Chaukidar in non-test category, subsequently, he joined on the said post. Sub-Post Office Mardah, District Ghazipur, is a regular post office and the appointment of the applicant was made on a sanctioned permanent post vacant due to death of the employee namely Late Jai Kishun Ram. Subsequently, he was posted for full time and regular auxiliary staff at the said Post Office Mardah, District Ghazipur and allowed to work side by side with regular employees of the Post Office. Subsequently, the appointment of the applicant made regular vide letter dated 31.01.1984 w.e.f. 17.11.1979. The applicant got retired from the post of Contingency Paid Chaukidar w.e.f 31.03.2021 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years vide retirement memo dated 06.03.2021.
It is further averred in the original application that the appointment of Contingency Paid Chaukidars regulates strictly with the provisions of Clause 154 of the “Manual for Pay and Allowances to the Officers of Postal & Telecommunication Department (hereinafter referred as ‘Manual’).
It is further averred in the original application that the applicant was getting the minimum scale of pay from the date of his regular appointment but without increment and as per the Para 154(b) of the ‘Manual’ the applicant is entitled for the post retiral benefits including the monthly pension etc.
It is further averred in the original applicant that it is averred that the applicant filed several representations before the respondents followed by reminders (last reminder dated 08.11.2021 is appended as Annexure A-8 at page 34 of the O.A.), but no specific/reasoned order has been passed on the representation of the applicant and merely, the applicant was informed that he is not entitled for any post retiral benefit including the pension as his services was not regularized being casual labourers.
The counter affidavit has been filed from the side of the respondents on 24.07.2013 denying the claim of the applicant with the averment that applicant was only granted temporary status as Group ‘D’ employee and his services was never regularized on the post of Group ‘D’ till his retirement and therefore, he is not entitled for the retiral benefits including the pension etc.
Rejoinder affidavit has been filed on 11.09.2023 by the applicant, reiterating his claim as in the Original Application.
Shri L.M. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is entitled for all service benefit including the pension etc. w.e.f. the date of his initial appointment in terms of the provision of Rule 154 (a) & (b) of the Manual.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that in the identical case, this Tribunal passed the order dated 28.07.2009 in Original Application No. 1626/2005 (Shyam Lal Shukla Vs. Union of India and Others), whereby the Original Application was allowed and direction was issued to the respondents to the effect that services of the employee is deemed to be regularized and treated as regular employee of the department and the employee are entitled for all post retiral benefit as per the relevant statutory rules in force, which was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment dated 23.12.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.60272/2009 (Union of India and Ors. Vs. Shyamlal Shukla). Against which, SLP (C) No.12264 was preferred by the Union of India and the Apex Court has also upheld the order of Tribunal as well as High Court vide judgment dated 06.08.2012.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the order passed in Shyam Lal’s case taking into the consideration the order dated 02.09.2005 passed this Tribunal in OA No. 917/2004 ( Chandi Lal Vs. U.O.I & ors.). Against which, a Writ Petition No.11297/2006 was filed, which was also dismissed by Allahabad High Court vide judgment dated 02.03.2007, which too was confirmed by Supreme Court vide order dated 03.03.2008 passed in SLP (Civil)--------/2008 (CC 3248/2008).
The learned counsel for the applicant places the names of Contingency Paid Chaukidar, referring orders of this Tribunal, High Court and Apex Court and all granted reliefs in terms of the judgment passed in case of Chandi Lal (supra), a chart has been supplied by the learned counsel for the applicant, which is reproduced hereinbelow :-
Sl. No.
Name of CP Chaukidars
Case Nos.
Date of Orders/ Judgements
1
Chandi Lal
OA No.917/2004
02.09.2005
WP No.11297/2006
02.03.2007
2
Shyam Lal Shukla
OA No.1626/2005
28.07.2009
WP No.60272/2009
23.12.2011
SLP No.12664/2012
06.08.2012
3
Haider Husain
OA No. 436/2011
27.03.2014
WP No.68773/2014
10.02.2015
4
Rakesh Chandra Sharma
OA No.1846/2012
27.03.2014
WP No.50872/2014
10.02.2015
5
Ghanshyam Das Nishad
OA No.14/2016
07.04.2016
WP No.1500/2017
11.01.2018
6
Khacheru Singh
OA No.1847/2012
11.11.2016
WP No.18838/2017
11.01.2018
7
Dase Ram Yadav
OA No.1447/2015
12.09.2017
WP No.780/2018
27.07.2022
8
Ganga Deen
OA No.500/2016
13.09.2017
WP No.62313/2017
23.10.2018
SLP No.32562/2019
14.10.2019
9
Virendra Kumar Ojha
OA No.1449/2015
06.10.2017
WP No.22021/2018
26.10.2018
SLP No.30925/2019
23.09.2019
10
Raj Narain Tiwari
OA No.66/2017
19.12.2017
WP No.18579/2018
11.09.2018
SLP No.32555/2019
27.09.2019
11
Chhangur Sharma
OA No.332/2016
19.12.2017
WP No.9489/2018
26.10.2018
SLP No.32569/2019
21.10.2019
12
Krishna Pal Singh & Ors
WP No.75830/2010
WP No.1693/2016
WP No.60065/2013
WP No.1500/2017
WP No.18838/2017
11.01.2018
SLP No.29280/2018
With Butch Matter
04.05.2022
13
Omkar Nath Yadav
OA No.1603/2016
14.02.2019
WP No.9136/2019
02.07.2019
14
Heera Lal alongwith 38 writ petitions
OA No.1513/2012
19.07.2019
WP No.10505/2023
01.12.2023
15
Babu Ram
OA No.1713/2014
24.11.2016
WP No.53325/2017
01.12.2023
16
Babita Devi
OA No.860/2017
02.08.2017
WP No.7943/2018
01.12.2023
17
Smt. Bitti Bai
OA No.1467/2015
23.08.2017
WP No.13490/2018
01.12.2023
18
Kusum Dev
OA No.1643/2011
25.10.2017
WP No.15538/2018
01.12.2023
19
Syed Ali
OA No.1455/2014
27.03.2018
WP No.16216/2018
01.12.2023
20
Kapil Deo Srivastava
OA No.1561/2016
18.04.2018
WP No.26057/2018
01.12.2023
21
Dilip Kumar Tripathi
OA No.1562/2016
18.04.2018
WP No.26070/2018
01.12.2023
22
Chandan Dubey
OA No.586/2012
08.03.2018
WP No.684/2019
01.12.2023
23
Ahibaran Singh
OA No.182/2011
28.08.2018
WP No.4881/2019
01.12.2023
24
Phoolwati Devi
OA No.464/2011
11.10.2018
WP No.5468/2019
01.12.2023
25
Smt. Asha Dixit
OA No.283/2015
29.08.2018
WP No.8103/2018
01.12.2023
26
Rohitash
OA No.948/2012
09.05.2018
WP No.12221/2019
01.12.2023
27
Jaishree Thakur
OA No.1183/2008
22.01.2019
WP No.14522/2019
01.12.2023
28
Raj Dhari Yadav
OA No.531/2018
22.01.2020
WP No.4258/2020
01.12.2023
29
Krishna Pratap Singh
OA No.951/2018
22.01.2020
WP No.4284/2020
01.12.2023
30
Rajendra Kumar Mishra
OA No.226/2018
11.02.2019
WP No.1623/2021
01.12.2023
31
Smt. Bhagyawati
OA No.1359/2019
17.02.2021
WP No.9481/2021
01.12.2023
32
Shripati
OA No.982/2014
15.01.2021
WP No.12366/2021
01.12.2023
33
Parashuram Ram
OA No.1602/2016
22.01.2020
WP No.2490/2022
01.12.2023
34
Patwari Singh
OA No.453/2020
22.04.2022
WP No.15501/2022
01.12.2023
35
Jai Prakash Asthana
OA No.535/2016
09.11.2022
WP No.2784/2023
09.11.2022
36
Vijay Laxmi
OA No.717/2020
09.11.2022
WP No.7445/2023
01.12.2023
37
Aman Kumar
OA No.318/2019
01.12.2022
WP No.7737/2023
01.12.2023
38
Bachchu Lal
OA No.1035/2021
08.02.2022
WP No.907623
01.12.2023
39
Narsingh Ram
OA No.14/2019
16.12.2022
WP No.10976/2023
01.12.2023
40
Smt. Umrai Singh
OA No.286/2019
06.01.2023
WP No.13405/2023
01.12.2023
41
Ramesh Prasad
OA No.
08.05.2023
WP No.14206/2023
01.12.2023
42
Smt. Girja Srivastava
OA No.287/2022
13.02.2023
WP No.14458/2023
01.12.2023
43
Ram Bali Batham
OA No.450/2019
03.05.2019
WP No.15058/2023
01.12.2023
44
Krishna Kumar Tiwari
OA No.74/2022
11.04.2023
WP No.15532/2023
01.12.2023
45
Ram Sahare
OA No.240/2022
14.03.2023
WP No.15536/2023
01.12.2023
46
Prabhu Nath Maurya
OA No.1323/2019
10.04.2023
WP No.15920/2023
01.12.2023
47
Smt. Madhu Sharma
OA No.1066/2018
10.11.2022
WP No.16904/2023
01.12.2023
48
Arjun Mishra
OA No.535/2021
06.01.2023
WP No.16940/2023
01.12.2023
49
Banshi Dhar
OA No.1598/2016
12.01.2023
WP No.17368/2023
01.12.2023
50
Banarsi
OA No.104/2020
12.01.2023
WP No.17798/2023
01.12.2023
On the other hand, Mr. Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel representing the respondents relied upon the contents of the counter-affidavit, but have not denied the order of this Tribunal passed in case of Shyam Lal Shukla (Supra) and Chandi Lal (Supra), which was affirmed upto the Hon’ble Apex Court.
I have considered the submissions so raised by the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
The Original Application No. 917/2004 (Chandi Lal Vs. UOI & Ors) decided on 02.09.2014 by this Tribunal. The entire reasoning is quoted as under :
“6. 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. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments-
“(i) O.A.No. 917/04-Chandi Lal Vs. U.O.I and Ors. Decided on 2.9.2015 by CAT, Allahabad Bench.
(ii) O.A.No. 1626/05- Shyam Lal Shukla Vs U.O.I and Ors. Decided on 28.7.2009 by CAT, Allahabad Bench.”
Rule 154(A) of the Manual reads as under:-
:154(a) Selected categories of whole-time contingency paid staff, such as Sweepers, Bhisties, Chowkidars, Chobdars, Malis or Gardeners, Khalassis and such other categories as are expected to work side by side with regular employees or with employees in work-charged establishments, should, for the present, be brought on to regular establishments of which they form adjuncts and should be treated as “regular” employees. The other contingency staff who do not fulfil these conditions, e.g. Dhobis, Tailors, Syccs, Grass Cutters, etc., should continue on the existing basis and should be treated to be “Casual employees”. Part-time employees of “regular” categories, as also employees of “Casual” categories who are not brought on the regular establishment, will continue, as at present, to be paid from contingencies.
From the 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 Charge 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 regularization.
I have also gone through the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the applicant. In the case of Chandi Lal (Supra), the applicant was working in the Department of Posts on work charge establishment w.e.f. 15.04.1982. 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‟ regular employee. Though no formal order of the regularization was issued in the said case but the Tribunal held the applicant entitled to pension treating his 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 other 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 (Civi)-----/2008 (CC 3248/2008).
In the case of Shyam Lal Shukla (supra), the applicant was initially appointed as full time CP Chowkidar and was granted temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989. No formal order of regularization was ever issued. In this case, the applicant was deemed to be regularized, treated as „regular employee‟ of the Department and declared entitled to all post retiral benefits as per relevant statutory rules in force. The Writ Petition No. 60272/2009 filed against the said order of Tribunal, was dismissed by Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court vide order dated 23.12.2011 and Hon‟ble Supreme Court also upheld the order of Tribunal and High Court vide order dated 06.08.2012.
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 C.P. Chowkidar on 01.07.1978 and he was extended temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989 and thereafter he was accorded the benefits of Group „D‟ employees. The Cases of Chandi Lal and Shyam Lal Shukla went up to Hon‟ble Supreme Court and it has been settled that such employees shall deemed to have been regularized and consequently required to be treated as regular employee of the respondents‟ department and consequently they are entitled to all pensionery benefits.
Accordingly, the O.A. stands allowed. The respondents are directed to ensure payment of pension and other post retiral benefits alongwith interest @ 7 % per anum from the date it becomes due till the date of actual payment as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs.”
Undisputedly, the applicant was engaged as Contingency Paid Chaukidar at Postal Division, Gajipur and he continued to work in the same capacity without any brake although his services were regularized vide letter dated 31.01.1984 w.e.f. 17.11.1979.
The similar situation prevailed with many such persons, thus, engaged. At the same time, a Scheme for regularization came to be framed and enforced in the context of similarly situated persons thus engaged by the Telecom Department. Taking note of such development, the Apex Court in case of Jagrit Majdoor Union and others Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and others; reported in 1990 Supp SCC 113 has held as under :-
“4. The two petitions have been opposed by the relevant Ministry by filing counter-affidavits where the stand taken is that RTPTOs are a special class by themselves with their own incidents of service and they cannot be treated at par with regular employee. The differences between the two services have been highlighted in the counter-affidavits. It is also the stand of the respondents that the order of this Court referred to above dated 28.07.1986 finally dis-posed of the major claim raised in the two petitions of the employees of the Two Telephone Nigams and fresh action was not appropriate. It is also pointed out that on February 10, 1986, there was an agreement of settlement and the present petition was an attempt to reopen the matter. On January 31, 1989, when Writ Petition No. 1276 of 1986 came up for hearing before this Court, the following order was made:
“Learned counsel for the petitioners concedes that the regularization of 21,000 employees in the Department of Telecommunications has been effected but complains that no such proceeding has taken place in respect of the postal employees. He states that these is pressing need for a parity of service conditions including pay, house rent allowance and other allowances between the temporary employees and the regular employees covered by this category. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India assures us that the scheme will be finalized latest by first week of April, 1989 and that complete position will be placed before the Court at that stage……………..”
The scheme known as Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status in Regularisation) Scheme has been formulated and put into operation from October 1, 1989 and a copy thereof has been placed for our consideration. We find that the scheme is comprehensive and apart from provision for conferment of temporary status, it also specifies the benefits available on conferment of temporary status, it also specifies the benefits available on conferment of such status. Counsel for the respondent – Nigams have told us that the scheme will be given full effect and other benefits contemplated by the scheme shall be worked out. In these circumstances, no further specific direction is necessary in the two applications relating to the two Nigams of Bombay and Delhi except calling upon the respondents to implement every term of the scheme at an early date.
The two remaining writ petitions relate to the Depart-ment of Posts. Though an assurance had been held out by the learned Additional Solicitor General that a separate scheme for the postal employees would be prepared and placed before the Court within a time frame, that has not been done. At the hearing, a note containing tentative proposals and a statement as to what has been done by way of improving the conditions of service have, however, been placed before the Court. The statement relating to improvements brought about indicates that after April, 1986, about seven thousand RTPs have been absorbed. Since the RTP category is no more expanding, only about 2,900 of them remain to be absorbed. We have been told by learned counsel for the Department that equal number of justified and supernumerary posts are being created and the Ministry‟s proposal is in the hands of the Ministry of Finance for approval and is expected to be finalized soon. This has to be done within a time frame and we direct the posts of both the categories to be created by the end of January, 1990, and the process of absorption to be completed by March 31, 1990. With such absorption made, the RTPs will become regular employees. All their claims would, thereafter, be regulated on the basis of entitlement in accordance with extant rules.”
As per the above directions issued by the Apex Court were given effect by the Central Government inasmuch, it framed Scheme dated 12.04.1991 described as Casual Labour (Grant of Temporary Status in Regularization) Scheme, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheme’). Clause 1,6,7,8,10,12,15,16 and 17 of the scheme read as under:-
“1. Temporary Status‟ would by conferred on the casual labourers in employment as on 29.11.2002 and who continuous to be currently employed and have rendered continuous service of at list one year During the yoarthoy must have been engaged for a period of 240 days (206 days in the case of officer observing five days weeks).
50% of the service rendered under Temporary status would be granted for the purpose of retirement benefits after regularization as a regular Group „D‟ official.
Conferment of temporary status does not automatically imply that the casual labourers would be appointed as regular Group „D‟ employees with any fixed time frame. Appointment to Group „D‟ vacancies will continue to be done as per the extant recruitment rules, which stipulate preference to eligible ED employees.
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.
Temporary status does not debar dispensing with the services of a casual labouror after following the duo procedure.
Casual labourers may be regularized in units other than recruiting units also, subject to availability of vacancies.
The engagement of the casual labourers will continue to be on daily rates of pay on need basis.
The conferment of temporary status has no rotation to availability of sanctioned regular Group „D‟ posts.
No recruitment from open market for Group „D‟ post except compassionate appointments will be done till casual labourers with the requisite qualification are available to fill up the posts in question.”
Thereafter, vide communication dated 14.06.2019 issued by Government of India, Temporary status was conferred amongst others on the applicant. However, before the services of the applicant could be regularized in term of the Scheme, he attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2021. Thus, he never acquired status of a regular employee. However, as per the communication dated 14.06.1991 issued by Government of India, applicant was entitled benefits for the aforesaid Scheme, such as post retiral benefits including pension to the applicant.
Similar view has been taken by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Writ A No.10505/2023 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. Heera Lal & Anrs.) vide judgment dated 01.12.2023.
In view of the above, relying upon the judgments passed by this Tribunal, High Court as well as Apex Court, the present applicant is entitled for the relief claimed and Original Application is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, instant O.A. stands allowed with the direction upon the respondents to ensure payment of pension and other post retiral benefits to the applicant due, treating him as regular appointee in Group ‘D’ employee with all consequential benefits, within next three months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Upon failure, the respondent will also liable to pay the interest @ 06 % per annum to the applicant from the date of this order till the date of actual payment.
The respondents are further directed to ensure the regular monthly pension to the applicant.
Pending Misc. Application, if any, also stands, disposed of accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs.