Smt. Sheela Devi Srivastava vs Union Of India & Ors.

Shri Jaswant Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Raj Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents were present at the time of hearing.

The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:

The brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA are that the husband of the applicant while working as casual labour in the respondents’ department, was allowed temporary status in accordance with DoPT OM dated 10.09.1993 and consequently he staff in the organization. The husband of the applicant was died (murdered) while in service and thereafter on the application submitted by the applicant, the respondents offered her appointment but on casual basis. The applicant has claimed that she has been continuously working in the department for the last 20 years and performing her duties 8 hours a day and in this way she is entitled for the wages @ 1/30^th of pay at the minimum pay scale + DA for working of 8 hours a day. Applicant has also claimed that her case is squarely covered by various judicial pronouncements made by several courts across the country and furthermore, different offices of the respondents’ department have also conferred the aforesaid benefit to several similarly situated persons but the same has not been accorded to the applicant. Thus, by way of this original application, the applicant seeks a direction to the respondents to grant appointment to her on Group C or Group D post. Further prayer has been made to issue direction to the respondents to grant the applicant the status of 1/30^th of Pay at the minimum of relevant pay scale of Group D plus DA as per office Order No 183/2022-Admin-1 dated 22.06.2023.

Counter has been filed by the respondents wherein it is stated that after the death of the husband of the applicant, the prayer of the applicant for appointment was considered on sympathetic grounds and the applicant was engaged as casual worker on daily wages in the department. Thereafter, she approached before the Tribunal vide original application seeking the direction to the respondents to grant regular appointment to the applicant. The OA was decided by the Tribunal directing the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant. In compliance, the representation was decided and case of the applicant was rejected vide reasoned and speaking order.

Rejoinder has been filed by the applicant reiterating the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated in the original application. The applicant has stated therein that his case is squarely covered by several judicial pronouncements made by various Courts across the country including the Apex Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that husband of the applicant died on 21/22 April, 2002 while in the service of the respondents. He was a casual labour with the temporary status grated in 1993. Then, the applicant preferred representation before the respondents seeking appointment in place of her husband. She was granted appointment as casual worker on daily wages vide order dated 13.08.2002 and was given duty w.e.f. 18.08.2002. Then, the applicant filed OA No 808 of 2006 before the Tribunal seeking direction for regular appointment. The said OA was disposed of vide order dated 04.8.2006 directing the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant dated 20.01.2006. In compliance, the respondents decided the representation vide order dated 21.11.2006 asking the applicant to approach before the Archaeological Survey of India, Patna Circle. The applicant accordingly moved representation dated 12.12.2006 before the Patna Circle but when it was not responded to, she again approached before the Tribunal vide OA No 832 of 2007 which was again disposed of directing the respondents at Patna Circle to decide representation of the applicant. The said authority rejected the representation on the ground that the husband of the applicant was not regularly appointed and thus the applicant was not entitled for compassionate appointment. Applicant again approached before the Tribunal vide OA No 839 of 2008 which was disposed of vide order dated 08.10.2012 directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for regularization of her services and to accommodate her on any Group C or Group D post. In compliance, the respondent at Patna Circle wrote a letter dated 21.03.2013 to the respondent no 2 seeking approval of appointment of the applicant but the same was never responded.

Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contentions of the applicant and referring to the counter affidavit, he argued that when the applicant approached before the Tribunal, the limited direction which was given by the Tribunal was to decide the representation of the applicant. The same was decided by the respondents by way of a reasoned and speaking order. The claim of the applicant for appointment on regular post is not liable to be accepted as she was engaged on casual basis in the place of her husband on humanitarian grounds. The applicant’s husband was also not a regular employee of the department and was a casual labour and therefore the claim of the applicant for appointment on a regular post is uncalled for and unacceptable. As regards to the prayer of the applicant regarding granting the status of 1/30^th of Pay at the minimum of relevant pay scale of Group D plus DA as per office Order No 183/2022-Admin-1 dated 22.06.2023, the same is also not acceptable. Thus, prayer was made by the respondents’ counsel to dismiss the OA being devoid of merits.

Learned counsel for the applicant rebutted the pleadings of the counter affidavit and referring to the rejoinder affidavit, it was argued that the husband of the applicant was working as casual labour who was allowed temporary status and was consequently allowed all the service benefits as available to a regular Group D staff in the organization. When he died, the applicant was engaged by the department as casual labour. She had been continuously working under the respondents for more than 20 years and performing her duties 8 hours a day and in this way she is entitled for the wages @ 1/30^th of pay at the minimum pay scale + DA for working of 8 hours a day. Learned counsel further argued that on 02.09.2016, the respondent no 3 issued order of regularization thereby regularizing five casual labours as MTS in the pay band of Rs 5200-20200 + GP 1800/-. Furthermore, recently the respondents have extended the same benefit in compliance of the order passed by Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal in different OA. Learned counsel further argued that the Allahabad Bench of Tribunal has also extended such benefits to similarly situated candidates in its judgment and order passed in OA No 221 of 2019 (Shiv Poojan Yadav and Others Vs Union of India and others) and OA No 531 of 2023 (Smt Sushma Vs Union of India and others) and therefore similar benefit must be extended to the applicant herein as well. To further substantiate his claim, learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the judgment dated 10.05.2024 passed by the Jabalpur Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No 600 of 2017 titled Archaeological Survey of India Workers Union through its Secretary Deepak Raikwar and Another Vs Union of India and others (bunch cases).

I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the records and carefully perused the case laws relied upon.

As the facts of the case have already been narrated above, the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. The husband of the applicant was a casual labour in the respondents’ department having acquired temporary status. After his death, the applicant was engaged as casual labour. She has pleaded for regularization of services and having put in a service of more than 20 years, which is established by the duty chart(s) and attendance sheet(s) annexed with the rejoinder affidavit, she has also prayed for a direction regarding granting the status of 1/30^th of Pay at the minimum of relevant pay scale of Group D plus DA. It is pertinent to record that in the similar facts and circumstances as operating in the instant case, one original application vide OA No 531 of 2023 was decided by this Bench of Tribunal through order dated 25.05.2026. In that case also, the husband of the applicant therein was a casual labour in the department and had acquired temporary status. After his death during service period, the applicant therein who was his wife, was engaged as casual labour and having put in a service of more than 20 years, she had claimed for granting the status of 1/30^th of Pay at the minimum of relevant pay scale of Group D plus DA. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal had allowed the case. The operative portion of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein below:

Furthermore, the case of the applicant draws support from the Office Memorandum dated 04.09.2019 issued vide Letter No. 49014/1/2017-Estt.(C) Pt. by Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions, Government of India. The same is quoted below:

Thus, in view of the aforesaid quotation, I am of the considered opinion that the instant case of the applicant is liable to be allowed in view of the aforesaid quoted and discussed judgment and also in view of the DoPT OM dated 04.09.2019 which has also been quoted in the preceding paragraph. Accordingly, the OA is allowed. The respondents are hereby directed to grant the applicant wages at the rate of 1/30^th of the minimum pay scale plus DA and other admissible benefits in terms of the relevant DoP&T OM after ensuring that the nature of work entrusted to the applicant was same as is entrusted to the regular employees. Respondents are further directed to consider applicant’s case for regularization / regular appointment against available Group ‘D’ / MTS vacancy in accordance with rules. These directions must be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.