Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ramesh Chand vs Post Up Circle on 14 August, 2025
Reserved on 31st July, 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
*********
Original Application No. 788 of 2023
Allahabad this the 14th day of _August, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member-J
Ramesh Chand, aged about 66 years, Son of Shri Raghuveer Chand
Residennt of Village Jugsana Tehsil Mahawan, District Mathura.
Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Vs.
1. Union of India through Ministry of Communication and IT,
Department of Posts, New Delhi.
2. Post Master General, Agra Region, Agra.
3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Mathura Division, Mathura.
4. Inspector of Post Offices, East Sub Division, Mathura-281001.
Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Mahendra Prasad Mishra
ORDER
Shri Ashish Srivastava, counsel for the applicant and Shri Mahendra Prasad Mishra, counsel for the respondents are present and heard.
2. By the instant O.A. the applicant has prayed for following relief(s):
-
"(i) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the applicant entire pensionary benefits including pension w.e.f. 01.09.2017.
(ii) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the applicant pension and other post retiral benefits on his retirement on 31.08.2017. the applicant may also MANISH MEHROTRA allowed the interest @ 12% per annum thereupon following the ratio of law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in catena of cases, affirmed by Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court.2
(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit & proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.
(iv) Award the cost of the original application in favour of the applicant."
3. The facts of case, as per pleadings in O.A., are that the applicant was initially appointed as Contingency Paid Chaukidar at Jugsana Post Office, Mathura on 01.06.1982. The applicant was granted temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989 and in the seniority list of temporary status Group-D officials, his name was placed at serial No. 4. The above seniority list has been corrected up to 31.07.2010. Thereafter, on 31.08.2017, the applicant was retired from service rendering 35 years of service. However, as a retiral benefits, nothing have been allowed to the applicant. Counsel for the applicant submitted that after appointment, the applicant was granted temporary status being full time worker and allowed the minimum pay benefits and allowances as being paid to regular Group 'D' employee. The applicant had been working as regular employee but, he was never regularized. Counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of Para-154 of the Manual of Appointment and Allowances of the Officers of the Indian Post and Telegraph department, the applicant is entitled for all retiral benefits. The applicant has represented his matter to the respondents from time to time. When nothing happened, he has filed the Original Application No. 968/2017 praying therein that the respondents may be directed to consider the applicant for grant of post retiral benefits after his retirement. This O.A. was decided by this Tribunal vide Order dated 23.11.2022 with direction to applicant to prefer a representation giving reference of the Order passed by this Tribunal for grant of post retiral benefits in favour of Contingency Paid Chaukidar. On 27.02.2023, the applicant preferred a MANISH MEHROTRA representation before the respondent No. 3 along with the relied upon rules, manuals and also the Orders and Judgments of this Tribunal, of the 3 Hon'ble High Court as well as of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the similarly situated C.P. Chaukidar in the postal department has been allowed the benefit of post- retiral benefits, however, in his case same was refused on the ground that neither he is entitled for regularization nor for any post-retiral benefits. Aggrieved with the non-action on the part of respondents, the applicant has filed the present O.A.
4. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein they have submitted that the applicant was appointed as contingent paid Chaukidar at Jugsana Sub post office (Mathura) vide SSPOS Mathura memo no. A/Jugsana/82-83 dated 01.06.1982 and thereafter applicant was granted temporary status on 29.11.1989 (Annexure R-1) and on attaining the age of superannuation, he was dispensed with from the post of C.P. Chowkidar in the A/N of 31.08.2017 (Annexure R-2). It is submitted by the respondents' counsel that as per departmental rules, the Contingent Paid Employee are to be promoted in MTS Cadre and these cases are to be decided by Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), which was held on 27.11.2012 and 03.01.2013 for the vacancy year 2011, 2012 and 2013. In the said DPC, the name of applicant was not considered due to non recommendation of Sub Divisional Inspector (Posts), East Sub Division Mathura because the applicant had submitted unwillingness for promotion into MTS cadre vide his application dated 23.11.2012. In the next DPC for the year 2015 which was held in Etawah Division for promotion to MTS cadre, the applicant also refused for his promotion vide his application dated 08.05.2015. For the year 2016-17 the DPC was held on 27.12.2016, the name of applicant for promotion to MTS cadre was also not considered due to his prior refusal as well as due to non recommendation of the concerned unit in-charge Sub Divisional Inspector (Posts) East Sub Division Mathura. After holding of DPC MANISH MEHROTRA meeting on 27.12.2016, the applicant Shri Ramesh Chand sent his application for his promotion to MTS cadre which was received in office of 4 Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices Mathura on 28.12.2016. The proceedings of DPC were completed on 27.12.2016, however, his application was not considered. Since then the applicant Shri Ramesh Chand has sent his representation/complaint to this office as well as to the higher authorities blaming for non promoting him in MTS (Group D cadre). In this regard, applicant was given a reply vide Sr. Supdt of Post Offices Mathura letter dated 03.03.2017 and 29.06.2017 stating all facts of the case. Thereafter, applicant filed OA on 968/2017 before this Tribunal for seeking retirement benefit. The aforesaid OA was decided by this Tribunal vide order dated 23.11.2022. In the aforesaid order it is mentioned that "the applicant may file a fresh representation before the department along with all the rulings placed before this court thereafter, the department will decide the aforesaid representation within a period of three months from the date of receiving of this order along with the fresh representation. It is pertinent to mention here that applicant has not submitted any representation till date. The applicant has again filed OA No. 788/2023 before C.A.T. Allahabad. Hence, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the O.A. being devoid of merits.
5. Counsel for the applicant has filed the rejoinder affidavit reiterating the facts, already stated in the O.A.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
7. The records show that the applicant was appointed as a Contingency Paid Chaukidar by letter dated 01.06.1982 (Annexure A-1). Annexure A-2 is an order dated 29.11.1989 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Mathura Division, Mathura granting 'Temporary Status' to various employees, effective from 29.11.1989. In this list, which was corrected up to 31.07.2010, the applicant's name MANISH MEHROTRA appears at Sl. No. 4. It is mentioned that he had been continuously serving since 08.06.1982. Therefore, it is undisputed that 'Temporary 5 Status' was granted to the applicant on 29.11.1989 and that he retired from service upon reaching superannuation on 31.08.2017.
8. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the issue has been settled by several decisions of CAT, High Court, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. If the temporary status has been granted then after 03 years the employee will deemed to be regularized. The applicant was receiving all the benefits of a regular employee of Group 'D' post, therefore, the respondents cannot deny the benefit of pension and the post retiral benefits.
9. The only contention of respondents' counsel is that the applicant being Contingency Paid Chaukidar was given opportunity for promotion to the M.T.S. cadre for which he has given his unwillingness on two occasions and again he was offered to appear in the examination held for the post of M.T.S. in which he failed. However, these facts do not change the status of applicant as Contingency Paid Chaukidar with the temporary status who was working in the pay scale of Group 'D' employee.
10. From the perusal of the law, it appears that the controversy involved in this case has already been settled by various decisions of CAT, High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court etc.
11. Temporary status to the employees has been granted in pursuance of a Scheme known as Casual Labours (Grant of Temporary Status in Regularization) Scheme. The said Scheme was formulated by the Department of Post, Government of India vide communication dated 12.04.1991 issued by the Director General, Department of Post, New Delhi in compliance of the interim order dated 31.01.1989 passed in W.P. No.1276 of 1986 by the Supreme Court. The aforesaid writ petition was finally decided on 29.11.1989 along with two other writ petitions [Writ Petition No. 1276, 1623 and 1624 of 1986] in Jagrit Mazdoor Union MANISH MEHROTRA (Regd.) &Ors. Vs. Mahanagar 5 Telephone Nigam Ltd. & Anr.,1989 SCR Supl (2) 329 = 1990 SCC Supl.113 = JT 1989 Supl. 364 = 1989 SCALE 6 (2) 1455. Relevant paras of the order of the Supreme Court in the said writ petition are quoted here in under:-
"On 31.01.1989, when the 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 21,000.00 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 there 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 finalised 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 01/10/1989 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 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."
12. As noticed earlier the Supreme Court had approved a Scheme for casual labours namely (Grant of Temporary Status in Regularization) Scheme. The said Scheme was drawn up by the Postal Department in consultation with the Ministries of Law, Finance & Personnel. The Scheme provides inter alia 'temporary status' should be conferred on casual labours in employment as on 29.11.1989 and continued to be employed on the said date and have rendered continuous service of at least one year. If an employee gets the temporary status he MANISH MEHROTRA should be entitled for minimum of the pay scale for a regular Group D including DA/HRA and CCA. One of the important features of the Scheme 7 which has relevance for the present controversy is that no recruitment from open market will be done till the casual labours were available to fill up the posts. The paragraph 17 of the Scheme is extracted hereunder below:-
"17. No recruitment from open market for group 'D' posts except compassionate appointments will be done till casual labourers with the requisite qualification are available to fill up the posts in question."
13. In the case of Union of India and others Vs. Shyam Lal Shukla, 2012(1) ADJ698 = 2011 AHC 175055 [DB] [Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.60272 of 2009 decided on 23.12.2011], temporary status was granted w.e.f. 29.11.1989. The O.A. No.1626 of 2005 was allowed on 28.07.2009 by a single bench of CAT Allahabad. The D.B. of Allahabad High Court dismissed the Writ petition filed against the aforesaid decision and said: -
"From the perusal of Rule 154 A of Manual it is manifestly clear that the Chowkidar, Sweeper, 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 word 'regular employee' without any reference to formal order of regularization. The Tribunal has relied on Rule 154 A of the Manual of appointment and allowances of the Officers of the Indian Post & Telegraphs Department. It is, undisputed fact that the respondent no.1 has worked and has received the payment from contingent fund w.e.f. 10.4.1982 to 26.11.1989 i.e. Seven Years Six Months and Nineteen days, thereafter from the consolidated fund of Central Government from 26.11.1989 to 29.11.1992 three years and then from 30.11.1992 till the date of retirement i.e. 30.6.2003 as temporary Government Employee of Group D, for ten years Seven months and One day. The total qualifying service for pension comes to 17 years, four months and 10 days.
It is admitted case that the respondent no.1 from his initial engagement i.e. 10.4.1982 till his date of superannuation i.e. 30.6.2003 has worked uninterruptedly and to the entire satisfaction of the Department as has been stated in the Counter Affidavit, Supplementary Counter Affidavit before the Tribunal and in the Writ Petition before this Court and there is no mention that the work of the respondent no.1 was MANISH MEHROTRA unsatisfactory.
The Tribunal has also relied on the order of the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal dated 13.1.1997 arising out of the Original 8 Application No. 159/93 of Tribunal, in the case of (Ram Lakhan v. Union of India and others) as well as order dated 2nd September, 2005 in Original Application No. 917 of 2004, (Chandi Lal versus. Union of India and others). The aforesaid orders were on the record of the Tribunal as Annexure-AR-2 and AR-3 with affidavit filed on 26.8.2008 in similar facts.
In our view the said Rule clearly spells out its essential purpose, to give pensionary benefit to certain class of employees as 'regular employee', notwithstanding the fact that no formal order of regularization was passed."
14. The S.L.P. No. 12664/2012, against the aforesaid judgment was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.08.2012 by saying:-
"Delay Condoned. We find no merit in this petition for special leave to appeal. It is dismissed."
15. 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. 15.04.1982. He was granted temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989 and thereafter, he was brought on the pay scale of Group 'D' employees 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 reported in 2007 AHC 2752 (DB) and Hon'ble Supreme Court also upheld the order of Tribunal and High Court vide order dated 03.03.2008 passed in SLP (Civil) No. 3248/2008. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP not only on account of Delay but also on merits. The Supreme Court said:-
"There is an inordinate delay of 223 days in filing the present petition. The explanation offered in the application for condonation of delay is neither satisfactory nor reasonable. The application for condonation of delay is, MANISH MEHROTRA therefore, dismissed.9
Even on merits, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Consequently the special Leave petition is dismissed both on ground of delay and merit."
16. The cases of Chandi Lal [Supra] and Shyam Lal Shukla [Supra] went up to the 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.
17. The aforesaid both judgments have been followed by Allahabad High Court in:-
"(1) Writ petition No. 68773 of 2014 decided on 10.02.2015.
(2) Judgment dated 11.01.2018 passed by D.B. of Allahabad High Court in Writ-A No. 75830 of 2010 [U.O.I. Vs. Krishna Pal Singh] and 4 connected writ Petitions.
(3) Union of India Vs. Heera Lal and Another, Writ-A No. 10505 of 2023 [Neutral citation No. 2023: AHC 228061 -DB] Allahabad High Court."
18. By following the aforesaid cases of Shyamlal (Supra) and Chandilal (Supra), this Tribunal also passed the order in:-
(1) Bacchu Lal Vs. U.O.I. etc., O.A. No. 1035 of 2021 decided on 08.02.2023, (2) Zamaluddin Vs. U.O.I.,etc., O.A. No. 1266 of 2011 decided on 07.04.2016, and, (3) Lalmani Devi Vs. U.O.I.etc., O.A. No. 474 of 2020 decided on 31.08.2023.
(4) Rasheed and another Vs. U.O.I. etc., O.A. No. 1073 of 2015 decided on 18.07.2023.
19. Recently vide order dated 01.12.2023 the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Writ (A) Petition No.10505/2023 (Union of Page No.10 India & Ors. vs. Heera Lal & Anrs.) has also taken a MANISH MEHROTRA similar view and held that: -
"We are also mindful of the fact that no such exercise is required to be made in the present facts as the respondent and others are individual 10 citizens, pitted against the almighty State that too none other than the Union of India. A citizen who has given all his productive life to Union of India, may not be out witted on legal niceties and procedural technicalities at the behest of the Union of India. The respondent has no option available to survive in life or to do anything other than what he did for more than 30 years i.e. to serve the Union of India. His productive years are lost. Accordingly, interference is declined. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
38. Let all pensionary dues be computed and paid out to the respondent within next three months, in any case not later than 31.03.2024, failing which the same may attract interest @ 6 % per annum."
20. In the present case, the applicant was granted 'temporary status' w.e.f. 29.11.1989. According to the aforesaid legal position, he will be treated as a 'regular employee from the date 29.11.1989'. He superannuated w.e.f. 31.12.2022. Therefore, after retirement, he is entitled to pensionary benefits.
21. Therefore, after consideration, the OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to ensure the payment of pension and other post-retiral benefits to the applicant due, treating him as a regular appointee in Group 'D' employee with all consequential benefits, within the next three months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Upon failure, the respondents will also be liable to pay the interest @6% per annum to the applicant from the date of this order till the date of actual payment of the amount.
22. The respondents are further directed to ensure the regular monthly pension to the applicant. All the pending MAs shall be deemed to have been disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Rajnish Kumar Rai) Member (Judicial) /M.M/ MANISH MEHROTRA