Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Badri And Ors. vs Union Territory And Ors. on 28 July, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(1)SLJ204(CAT)
JUDGMENT
O.P. Garg, Vice-Chairman
1. This batch of the applications arises out of a common cause of action and all the applicants are similarly placed. Therefore, all the fifteen O.As. are being decided by a common order.
2. Short of certain superfluities and variations in facts as well as form of the reliefs claimed, the basic question involved in all the fifteen O.As. is the same; whether the regularisation of the services of the above named applicants can be deferred till the availability of a post/vacancy or a direction is to be issued to the respondents to regularise the services of the applicants by creating equal number of corresponding posts. This controversy has cropped up in the backdrop of the following facts:-
3. The applicants in all the O.As. were engaged as casual/daily wagers in the capacity of Coolies/Beldars/Malies/Helpers/Chowkidars etc., (Group-D).' Their engagements came to be made in diferent years right from 1969 onwards. Some of them have, in course of time, retired after serving the respondents for a period more than 30 years or about. A spate of litigation ensued at the instance of the applicants or similarly circumstanced persons in the form of different O.As. in which they have claimed parity in pay and allowances with their counter parts who were appointed on regular basis. They have also claimed regularisation of their services. From the judgment/order dated 1.4.1992 of this Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 276-CH of 1989, Civil Appeal No. 7062 of 1996 and connected Appeal Numbers 7065, 7063-64 of 1996 were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which were decided on 29.3.1996. The said decision is titled as Union of India and Ors. v. Dharam Pal and Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 195. A scheme for regularisation of the work-charged employees as well as casual/daily wagers was framed which, after having been approved by the Central Government, was placed before the Apex Court. The question which was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case was whether the appellants--Union of India & Others--could be permitted to proceed in the light of the Scheme framed by them. After due consideration of the respective contentions, the Apex Court found it appropriate to give approval to the Scheme framed by the Appellants--Union of India & Others. It was held that "in view of the settled law by recent decisions all the daily wage employees are required to be regularised in accordance with the rules in vogue following the principles of rules of recruitment, reservation and existence of vacancies...." The approved Scheme required enforcement. Para 6 of the decision aforesaid which clinched the issue reads as follows:-
"6. In view of the scheme now framed, the appellants are directed to regularise all those who have completed the prescribed period of days, viz. 240 days against the existing vacancies applying the rules of reservation in the order of seniority in the respective categories mentioned in the scheme. Such regularised employees would be entitled to all the regular payment at the scale of pay prescribed to the Central Government employees. Those who could not be regularised are directed to be regularised in the order of seniority as and when vacancies arise. Work would be continued to be taken from them as long as the work exists. Even those who were engaged as daily-wage/casual labour, who could not complete 240 days but were required to be retrenched, the procedure prescribed for retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act should be followed. A list of them in the order of seniority should be maintained. Last-come first-go principle should be followed in that behalf. As and when vacancies arise or need for the work arises, they should be called for work immediately without asking them to get their names sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The daily-wage workers/casual workers who are not regularised and work is taken from them are entitled to minimum of scale of pay prescribed for that post in addition to that, they are also entitled to 60% of the DA at Punjab pattern which is being followed in all other cases. The payment to all the candidates whose services are regularised/continuing on daily-wage/ casual labour shall be calculated from one year prior to the date of filing of the application in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh....."
On the strength of the above observations as well as other decisions of the Apex Court, the applicants are claiming regularisation of their services which has been denied to them by the respondents on the ground of non-availability of the vacancies or posts. The relief for 'equal pay for equal work' with Dearness Allowance (DA) as has been allowed to the counterparts employed on similar basis was also granted.
4. At this stage, it would be quite appropriate and pertinent to point out that the respondent-department had issued orders for the grant of wages or salary to the applicants and other similarly circumstanced employees at the minimum of the pay scale as is admissible to their counter-parts appointed on regular basis, besides payment of 60% of the Dearness Allowance in terms of the order of the Apex Court as well as this Tribunal. Therefore, the relief claimed by the applicants, in so far as it relates to the payment of salary and D.A., stands satisfied. The prayer in the present O.As. is, therefore, confined only to the relief of regularisation of the services of the applicants by creating requisite number of new posts.
5. In other set of O.As. (1070-CH/02, 1072/CH/02, 1073-CH/02, 1074-CH/02, 14-CH/03 & 40-CH/03) besides the question of regularisation after the new posts are created, it is prayed that the concerned applicants/employees who stood superannuated, be granted the pensionary as well as retiral benefits which have been denied to them on the ground that they do not have to their credit the regular qualifying service for the entitlement of the said benefits.
6. The stand taken by the respondents in all the O.As. is that the Scheme as approved by the Apex Court in Dharam Pal's case is being implemented both in letter and spirit and as and when'the vacancies are available, the casual/daily wagers and work-charged employees are being regularised in service according to their seniority and the provision made in the Scheme. It is maintained that in the absence of the posts/ vacancies, the services of the applicants cannot be regularised and they have to wait for their turn to come.
7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length and have scanned the material placed before us.
8. Mr. Vinay Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents urged that the other set of employees, similarly circumstanced, had filed O.A. No. 1296-CH of-- Kelongi and Ors. v. Union Territory and Ors. on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Pal & Others (supra), for regularisation of their services by creating new posts. It was pointed out that the said O.A. was dismissed on 1.11.2002 and the Review Application No. 163 of 2002 had also been dismissed on 25.3.2003 with the observations that those applicants shall be regularised as and when the vacancies arise. On the strength of the said decision, the learned Counsel for the respondents urged that the applicants are not entitled to the relief claimed and all the O.As. are to be dismissed, particularly keeping in view the fact that the respondents are complying with the directions of the Apex Court by regularising the senior employees against the available vacancies. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the decision of the Division Bench of this Tribunal in Kelongi & Others (supra) to which one of us (Hon'ble Shri C.S. Chadha) was the Member and find that while deciding the said case, various decisions of the Apex Court were not brought to the notice of the Bench and therefore, escaped consideration. In our view, the result of the said O.A. would have been entirely different if the earlier decisions of the Apex Court were considered. We, therefore, do not feel bound by the decision referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondents. In the circumstances, we proceed to decide those O.As. independently of what has been said in the case of Kelongi & Others (supra). It is true that while issuing the directions, the Apex Court in the case of Dharam Pal & Others (supra) had observed that those employees would not be regularised were to be regularised in the order of their seniority as and when vacancies arise, but these observations have to be read in the historical retrospect of the various O.As. filed by the present applicants and other similarly placed daily wage/casual workers as well as various other decisions of the Apex Court. An oft-repeated stand of the respondents that the services of the applicants shall continue to be regularised in terms of the Scheme approved by the Apex Court as and when the vacancies arise is, in the circumstances, nothing but subterfuge for the obvious reason that most of the applicants would end up their career without being regularised in service and consequently be deprived of the retiral and pensionary benefits. The intention of the Scheme and the order passed by the Apex Court could not have been that a substantial number of the employees working for the last 2-3 decades would not be regularised in service. In the context of these facts, it is peculiar on the part of the respondents to urge that the applicants cannot be regularised unless the vacancy/ vacancies is/are there. This submission lies ill in the mouth of the Administration of Union Territory, Chandigarh 'for it is an all too familiar argument with the exploiting class and welfare State committed to a socialistic society cannot be permitted to advance such an argument'. The Chandigarh Administration like all organs of the State is expected to function like a model and enlightened employer and the arguments that the regularisation is to be made as and when the vacancies arise (which contingency may not arise at all for the benefit of the applicants) should ill come from the mouth of the Union Territory.
9. For the benefit of those, particularly, the Chandigarh Administration which does not seem to be aware of the various decisions of the Apex Court, we would now refer to the relevant decisions on the point. In Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar, 2000(2) SCT 394, the Apex Court had the occasion to consider the question of regularisation of daily wage workers working on the Class-IV posts for more than 10 years in the appellant--University. Usual pleas not to regularise the services of the employees that there were serious financial constraints to create equivalent posts for the absorption of daily wage workers, were taken. After taking into consideration the earlier decisions on the point viz. Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under P&T Department v. Union of India and Ors., 1988( 1) SCC 722= 1988(2) SLJ 31 (SC); State of Haryana and Ors. v. Jasmer Singh, 1997(2) SCT 151 (SC) =1997(1) SLJ 129 (SC); State of Haryana v. Surinder Kumar and Ors., 1997(2) SCT 533 (SC)=1997(2) SLJ 203 (SC); State of Haryana v. Pyara Singh Others, 1992(3) SCT 201 (SC)=1992(3)SLJ 34 (SC); Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD, 1996(1) SCC 639; Mool Raj Upadhyaya v. State of HP and Ors., 1994 (4) SCT 136 (SC); Dharwad District, PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Association and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., 1990(2) SCC 396; Rao Samashekara v. State of Karnataka, 1997(4) SCT 435 (SC)=1998(2) SLJ 11 (SC); Raj Narain Prasad and Ors. v. State of U.P., 1998(8) SCC 473; Hindustan Machine Tools v. M. Rangareddy, 2001(1) SCT 267 (SC); Delhi Veterinary Association v. Union of India, 1984(3)SCC 1; Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State, Mizeral Development Corporation, 1990(1) SCC 361; Basudev Pati v. State of Orissa and Ors., 1997(2) SCT 181 (SC)=1997(2) SLJ 197 (SC); U.P. Income Tax Department (contingent paid) Staff Welfare Association v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1987 SC 658=1988(2) SLJ 38 (SC); State of Punjab v. Devinder Singh and Ors., 1998(9) SCC 595; Chief Conservator of Forests and Ors. v. Jagan Nath Marutikondhare, 1996(2) SCT 165 (SC), the Apex Court took the view that long continuation of work carry a persumption of existence of regular posts. Financial constraints of statutory body of the State cannot be stretched for the benefit of the institution or the State at the cost of the workers. The State should take up only that much work which is within its financial resources. We would do well to extract the following paragraphs from the decision for proper appreciation of the facts:
"It is also well settled, if work is taken by the employer continuously from daily wage workers for a long number of years without considering their regularisation for its financial gain as against employees legitimately claim, has been held by this Court repeatedly as an unfair labour practice. In fact, taking work, from daily wage worker or adhoc appointee is also viewed to be only for a short period or as a stop gap arrangement, but we find new culture is growing to continue with it for a long time, either for financial gain or for controlling its workers more effectively with sword of damocles hanging over their heads or to continue with favoured one in the cases of adhoc employee withstaling competent and legitimate claimants. Thus, we have no hesitation to denounce this practice. If the work is of such a nature, which has to be taken continuously and in any case when this pattern become apparent, when they continue to work for year after year, only option to the employer is to regularise them. Financial viability, no doubt is one of the considerations but then such enterprise or institution should not spread its arms long than its means. The consequent corollary is, where work is taken not for a short period or limited for a season or where work is not of part time nature and if pattern shows work is to be taken continuously year after year, there is no justification to keep such persons hanging as daily rate workers. In such situation a legal obligation is cast on an employer if there be vacant post to fill it up with such workers in accordance with rules, if any, and where necessary by relaxing the qualifications, where long experience could be equitable with such qualifications. If no post exists then duty is cast to assess the quantum of such work and create such equivalent post for their asbsorption" (Para 15).
"It was not expected from the institution like the present appellant, especially when it is fully funded by the State Government that this process of absorption should have taken such a long time and to have yielded to it only after this long battle. This legal position is well known not only to the appellant but the State who is funding it, then why to do it only after Court's intervention. It is true creation of post does involve financial implication. Hence financial health of a particular institution plays important role to which Courts also keep in mind. The Court does exercise its restrain where facts are such where extent of creation of post creats financial disability. (sic) If finances are short engagement of such daily wage workers could only be for a short limited period and if continuous work is required it could only do so by creating permanent post, if finances are not available, take such work which is within financial mean. Why take advantage out of it at the cost of workers" (Para 17).
"Daily rate workers who have been working on the aforesaid posts for such a long number of years without complaint on these posts is a ground by itself for the relaxation of the aforesaid eligibility condition. It would not be appropriate to disqualify them on this ground for their absorption....." (Para 26).
"Thus in view of their long experience on the fact of this case and for the concerned posts the prescribed qualification, if any, should not come in the way of their regularisation" (Para 28).
"In considering such absorption, the financial means have to be stretched to the maximum but should not be a defence with motive to disentitle the claim of the workmen. The Court has to be cautious in exercising its discretion. On the one hand it has to keep the interest of the workers alive and on the other to see that employer does not become spineless for the lack of funds eroding the very workers interest" (Para 29).
"In this light and in the absence of details being placed before us, we are leaving the extent of creation of the posts on the State Government. We hope and trust, the Government who is the guardian of the people and is obliged under Article 38 of the Constitution, to secure a social order for the promotions of welfare of the people, to eliminate inequalities in status, will endeavour to give maximum posts even at the first stage of absorption, and do the same in the same spirit for creating additional posts after enquiry as we are indicating hereunder. It is necessary that the State Government to set up an enquiry to find what further number of additional posts are required for regularising such other daily rated workers, and after assessing it, to create such additional posts for their absorption. This exercise should be done by the State Government within a period of six months" (Para 30).
10. Besides the above decision of the Apex Court, the learned Counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Raj Bala and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors., 2002(2) SCT 1035. In the said case, it was nowhere provided in the policy framed for regularisation that there should be a regular post available for regularisation of the services. It was held that once a policy is formulated by the State then it is under obligation to regularise the services of the employees who satisfy the ingredients provided therein. It was further observed that even if there is any such stipulation (i.e. there should be a regular vacant post available for regularisation), the same is not sustainable in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dherender Chamoli and Anr. v. State of U.P., 1986(1) LLJ 134, wherein it is clearly held that non-availability of a post is no ground for rejecting regularisation of the employees, if they are otherwise eligible. There is yet another decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Raldu Ram etc. v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 10774 of 1999 decided on 4.2.2000 in which the following observations were made:-
"So far as the second ground is concerned, it is sufficient to point out that the work for the petitioners was with the respondents and they continued to serve and are in service even as on today and since they have already rendered more than 10 years service, it cannot be said that their services cannot be regularised for non-availability of the required posts. Once the respondents have engaged the petitioners on work, which is of continuous nature, and permitted them to serve on their respective posts for more than 10 years, it will be unfair for the respondents to decline the case of the petitioners for regularisation of their services for non-availability of posts."
On the strength of the above observations, the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Ranbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2002(1) SCT 674, it was held that when the respondents have framed the policy of regularisation, it does not lie in their mouth to say that there is no post available. The petitioners are working in the job and hence the work is available and it is for the respondents to create necessary posts. In another decision, the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Roop Lal and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., 2003(1) SLR 656, it was found that the petitioners were eligible to be appointed and they have satisfied the prescribed conditions but the benefit of regularisation was denied only on the excuse that there were no vacant posts. It was held that once the State formulates a policy of regularisation, it is obligatory on their part to implement the same without creating any discrimination and arbitrariness. The contention of the respondents that the regularisation could be denied for want of vacant posts, can hardly be an excuse for rejecting the claim of the petitioners. It was so held by another Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Surinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., CWP No. 11232 of 2001 decided on 27.11.2002 following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (supra) and Palu Ram and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1998(4) RSJ 152. A Division Bench of Jodhpur Tribunal in the case of Jokhan Prasad and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 2002(1) ATJ 466 has also ruled that those persons who have been in service for the last about 20 years are to be considered for regularisation in Group-D posts by creating the requisite number of regular posts. In this case, reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dherender Chamoli (supra) and in the case of Surinder Singh and Ors. v. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD and Ors., 1986 SCC (L&S) 189.
11. The gamut of the various decisions referred to above is that the Courts have frowned upon and denounced the practice to keep the employees on tenter hooks by continuing them on casual/adhoc basis for a number of years; the fact that the employees are allowed to work on adhoc or casual or daily wage basis for decades together is indicative of the fact that they are deprived of the posts for which there is a positive need and there appears to be existence of permanent nature of work, that it amounts to unfair labour practice if the employees who are performing their duties which involve permanent or regular nature of work, are continued as casual/adhoc or daily wage workers. Non-regularisation on the mere excuse that there are not enough number of vacancies or posts amounts to exploitation of the employees who do not have the bargaining power and that department deliberately adopts the course of taking regular work of permanent nature from the casual/adhoc or daily wage employees with an avowed object of denying them the privilege of regular service and also negating their right to retiral or pensionary benefits. This approach smacks of ante-socialistic stand. The respondents are expected to function like model and enlightended employers and the arguments that regularisation is not possible in the absence of sanctioned posts is wholly untenable. In the matters of the applicants before us, there does not appear to be any financial implication if the posts are created to regularise their services for one simple reason that each one of the applicants is being paid the salary at the minimum of the pay scale as is admissible to their counter-parts. Even without creation of the posts, the applicants have continued to draw the salary and other emoluments as are admissible to the regular employees. Therefore, if new posts are created to accommodate the applicants with a view to regularise their services, the respondent-department is not to be financially burdened in any manner. It is only a question of status and that of service benefits which the applicants may be entitled to derive after they stand superannuated.
12. Inspite of the fact that in the Scheme which was formulated by the respondents and was approved by the Apex Court in the case of Dharam Pal & Others (supra), that regularisation of the employees is dependent on the availability of vacant posts, we find that the thrust of the subsequent decisions as mentioned above is that it would amount to unfair labour practice if the respondent-department declines regularisation of the service applicants for non-availability of the posts. The very fact that the applicants have been working for the last more than two decades justifies the assertion that they are performing permanent nature of work and that there is a need to retain them in service. It is true that creation of a large number of posts unduly burdens the State and creates some insurmountable problems which the State may not be able to solve or handle. It is the legislature of the State which controls the Consolidated fund out of which the expenditure is to be incurred in giving effect to the Scheme of regularisation of the services of adhoc/casual or daily wage employees. Any directions required to be made by the Courts have to meet the test of judicious restraint. As said in the instant case, there are hardly any financial implications in creating the posts as the applicants are already drawing the minimum of the pay scale as is admissible to the regular employees in the same cadre. Though the applicants shall continue to get minimum of the pay scale with dearness allowance etc., as admissible to the regular employees, new posts can be created without the slightest financial burden. If the work load does not justify the continuance of the newly created posts to regularise the services of the applicants, such posts may be kept in abeyance or disbanded as no longer required. The idea is that the applicants should be regularised in service by creating equal number of posts without any financial burden so that their legitimate claim for retiral or pensionary benefits may not be unjustifiably denied on the lame excuse that the employee ceased to work without holding a regular post, which stand has been taken by the department in the O.As. discussed in the following paragraphs.
13. In O.A. Nos. 1070-CH/2002, 1073-CH/2002, 14-CH/2003 and 40-CH/2003, the respective applicants have retired without regularisation of their services. The O.As. No. 1072-CH/2002 and 1074-CH/2002 have been preferred by the widows of the employees who died after retirement without regularisation of their services. In these O.As., the pensionary and retiral benefits had been denied by the respondents primarily on the ground that the service of the concerned employees had not been regularised and in any case since the period of regular service falls short of ten years' qualifying service, no pensionary benefits can be granted. The employees covered by these O.As. have to be regularised by creating new posts in view of the observations made above. Now the question is whether for computing the period of ten years of regular service, is it permissible to count the service rendered by the employees on daily wage/casual or adhoc basis prior to the regularisation of their services. Mr. Amit Chopra, learned Counsel for the applicants in these O.As. urged that the respondents cannot deny the benefit of service rendered by the concerned employees on adhoc or daily wage basis for the purposes of counting ten years' service for the grant of pension. He placed reliance on a number of decisions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court to fortify his submission. A reference was made to the earlier decision in the case of Mohan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1991(3) SCT 147. In that case, the petitioner--Mohan Singh had worked from 21.2.1953 to 30.11.1958 and from 1.12.1958 to 30.11.68 on adhoc basis. The service of the petitioner for purposes of pensionary benefits was counted from the date of his adhoc appointment and since, as an adhoc employee, he rendered service only for 8 years, 11 months and 2 days, he was found not eligible for pension as he had not completed the minimum service of ten years as required under Rule 6.12 (1) of CSR Vol-II. The Hon'ble Court held that-
".....It would be unjust and inequitable in case the period from 21.2.1953 to 18.12.1958 is excluded while computing the qualifying service of the petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits. The Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Dev. Corporation, 1990 LIC 126 has held that the persons who continue in service on daily wages for more than 3 years, would be entitled to confirmation even if they were unqualified. In the present case, it is not the case of the State, that the petitioner was not qualified for being appointed to the post of carpenter. Thus, the action of the State in not treating the petitioner as regular with effect from 21.2.1953 is absolutely illegal arbitrary and cannot be sustained in law."
In the case of Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., 1999(5) SLR 497, the pensionary benefits were denied to the petitioner on the ground that his services were less than ten years. Instructions had been issued by the Government whereby the daily wage workers were regularised on 20.1.1995. The petitioner had 13 years of service to his credit. It was held that if a temporary or adhoc service is followed by regular service, the entire period of service shall count for purposes of pension. There is yet another decision of the same High Court in the case of Kewal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(4) SCT 650 in which, relying upon the Full Bench decision in the case of Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab through the Secretary, PWD B&R, Chandigarh and Ors., 1988(2) PLR 223, it was held that the period of service rendered by an employee on work charge basis prior to regularisation of his services, has to be considered as qualifying service while determining the pension. In Kewal Singh's case, the petitioner had admittedly served the department for more than 15 years. Apparently, there was nothing against him which could disentitle him to get pension. It was held that mere failure of the Government to sanction a regular post, should not result in deprivation of the pension at the end of the service. It was directed that the petitioner's case of regularisation of his services prior to the date of his retirement shall be considered and thereafter his claim for pension shall be re-examined and whatever is found due, shall be paid to him. In CWP No. 19732 of 2001--Hazura Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., decided on 14.1.2003, the law on the point was elaborately discussed and it was concluded that the service rendered on the establishment, even on casual or daily rated basis, is to be counted as qualifying service. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed with a direction to the respondents to re-determine the retiral benefits after taking into consideration the adhoc/temporary service of one year, six months and 20 days rendered by the petitioners.
14. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to deny the retiral/pensionary benefits to the applicants in O.A. Nos. 1070 to 1074-CH of 2002, 14-CH of 2003 and 40-CH of 2003. For purposes of computing 10-years regular service rendered on daily wage, casual or adhoc basis before regularisation of service shall be counted and if the total length of service both before and after regularisation comes to 10 years or more, the concerned employee shall be entitled to the pensionary benefits, irrespective of the fact that part of his service was on adhoc, casual or daily wage'basis. After regularisation of their services, the applicants in the above mentioned six O.As. (1070,1072, 1073 and 1074-CH of 2002, 14 and 40-CH of 2003) are entitled to the pensionary benefits.
15. In the result, all the fifteen O.As. are allowed. It is directed that the respondent-department shall consider the question of creation of a requisite number of posts to regularise the services of all the applicants. Regularisation of their service shall not be deferred or denied merely on the ground that there are no regular vacancies/posts. The applicants in the O.As. No. 1070, 1072, 1073 and 1074-CH of 2002 and 14 and 40-CH of 2003 shall further be entitled to the pensionary and retiral benefits which shall be released to each one of them within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before the competent authority. No order as to costs.