Ramu Singh Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors.

ORDER

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.

“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).

8.

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.

9.

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.

10.

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.”

“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……………..”

5.

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.

6.

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.”

“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).

6.

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.

7.

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.

8.

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.

10.

Temporary status does not debar dispensing with the services of a casual labouror after following the duo procedure.

12.

Casual labourers may be regularized in units other than recruiting units also, subject to availability of vacancies.

15.

The engagement of the casual labourers will continue to be on daily rates of pay on need basis.

16.

The conferment of temporary status has no rotation to availability of sanctioned regular Group „D‟ posts.

17.

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.”