Satya Pal Singh vs Union Of India & Ors.

The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as full time Contingency Paid Chowkidar with effect from 24.06.1977 in Sub Post Office, Aanwala, District Bareilly. The applicant was granted temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989 and became entitled for all the retiral benefits including pension vide the letter dated 28.10.1994 issued by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Bareilly Division, Bareilly. After attaining the age of superannuation, applicant retired from service w.e.f. 31.05.2016. The applicant has filed the present O.A. with the grievance that even after passage of more than three months the respondents did not give retiral benefits such as pension etc. to the applicant in spite of moving representations dated 13.04.2016, 28.04.2016 and 03.08.2016 before the respondents who have paid no heed to them. The applicant has prayed to pay all retiral benefits and pension since the date of retirement as the applicant was continuously serving the department from 24.06.1977 to 31.05.2016 i.e. for 39 years without break and 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.

Respondents have filed counter affidavit stating therein that the applicant was engaged as C.P. Chowkidar w.e.f. 24.06.1977 on daily wages basis. He was granted temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989 while he was appointed on regular basis vide SSPOs Bareilly memo dated 19.01.2016, but he did not join on regular post and worked as temporary status Group “D” till retirement, as such, the applicant is not entitled for the relief sought for and thus the present O.A. is liable to be dismissed.

Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed in which the applicant has reiterated the same facts as stated in the OA and denied the contents of the counter affidavit.

I have heard Sri L.M. Singh and Shri M.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, as well as Shri Rajni Kant Rai, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is seeking pension on the ground that applicant had been granted temporary status and on completion of 39 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. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that respondents have not denied that they have taken work from the applicant on a regular basis without objection and/or finding ‘deficiency’ in the discharge of duties by the applicant for about three decades. The respondents granted ‘temporary status’ to the applicant thereby extending all benefits including contribution to G.P.F. at par with other regular employees (as contemplated under relevant Rules) except for issuing formal order of regularization. It is a settled law that if a Daily Rated Worker/Casual Labour or Temporary employee has been working since long period without objection on any score; the said employee may acquire all antecedents of a regular employee and he should be treated as such. He also argued that in these facts, the applicant is deemed to be regularized and be treated as regular employee of the department and is accordingly entitled for pension as per relevant statutory rules in force.

Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that no temporary status employee is entitled for pension until and unless he is absorbed against a permanent Group ‘D’ post. Since the applicant was appointed on regular basis vide SSPOs Bareilly memo No.B-2/Rectt./M.T.S./2015 dated 19.01.2016, but he did not join on regular post and worked as temporary status Group “D” till retirement, hence as per rules he is not entitled for any pensionary benefits.

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

From perusal of record it is clear that the applicant was appointed as Contingency Paid Chowkidar with effect from 24.06.1977 in the Postal Department. The applicant was granted temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989. Applicant was working continuously on the aforesaid post and receiving allowances as revised from time to time like other employees of the Postal Department. The respondents granted ‘temporary status’ to the applicant thereby extending all benefits including contribution to G.P.F. at par with other regular employees (as contemplated under relevant Rules) except for issuing formal order of regularization. Applicant retired from service on 31.05.2016 after attaining the age of superannuation but his pension has not been paid by the Postal Department.

Post and Telegraph Ministerial Manual Establishment Rule 154 (a) provides that “selected categories of whole time contingency paid staff, such as Sweepers, Bhisties, Chowkidars, Chobdars, Mails or Gardeners, Khalassis and such other categories as are expected to work side by side with regular employees or with employees in work charged establishment, should, for the present, be brought on to regular establishment of which they form adjuncts and should be treated as “regular employees”.

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 -

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 2.9.2015 by CAT, Allahabad Bench, the applicant was working in the Department of Posts on work charge 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 but the Tribunal held the applicant 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) ---------/2008 (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 24.06.1977 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 be deemed to have been regularized and consequently required to be treated as regular employees of the respondents’ department and consequently they are entitled to all pensionary benefits. Applicant’s case is squarely covered with the law laid down in Raj Narain (supra), Gangadeen (supra) and Chhangur Sharma (supra) also. Plea of the respondents that applicant was accorded benefit of regularization vide memo dated 19.01.2016, but he did not join on regular post is not sufficient to deny the applicant the benefits of pension etc.

Thus, relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the O.A. is allowed. The respondents are directed to ensure payment of pension and other post retiral benefits to the applicant along with interest @ 6% per annum 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 certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. All associated MAs are disposed of.