Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Bharathi vs Central Silk Board on 24 March, 2026
1 OA 469/2024 & 607/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NOS.170/00469/2024 &
170/00607/2024
ORDER RSERVED ON: 06.03.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 24.03.2026
CORAM
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE DR.SANJIV KUMAR ...MEMBER(A)
Smt.Bharathi,
Aged about 42 years,
W/o Late N.Pillappa, Ex-SFW(TS),
Door No.245, Kodathi Village,
Sarjapura Road, Carmelaram Post,
Bangalore -560035.. ....Applicant
(By Advocate, Shri Sampangi Ramaiah)
Vs.
1. The Joint Secretary (Silk),
Ministry of Textiles,
Government of India,
Udyog Bhawan,
New Delhi-110011.
2. The Member Secretary,
Central Silk Board,
(Ministry of Textiles-Govt. of India),
BTM Layout,
S Sarala Devi
CAT Bangalore
S Sarala Devi
2026.03.27 11:09:17+
2 OA 469/2024 & 607/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
Madiwala,
Bangalore-560068.
3. The Director,
Seri-Biotech Research Laboratory,
Central silk Board, CSB Complex,
Sarjapur Road,
Carmelaram Post, Kodathi,
Bangalore-560035. ...Respondents
(By Advocate, Shri Vishnu Bhat)
ORDER
Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)
Since common and akin issues are involved, both the OAs are clubbed and heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The reliefs claimed are as under:
OA No.469/2024
(i) Issue an Order in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the Impugned Office Order bearing No.CSB-
2(3)/93-Labour (Vol.XIV) [12/01] dated 03.10.2023 (Annexure-A6) passed by the Respondent Board; and S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.03.27 11:09:17+ 3 OA 469/2024 & 607/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
(ii) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the Respondents Board to consider the Applicant's prayer for appointment on compassionate ground to the widow of Late N.Pillappa, Ex SFW(T.S) by treating his service as deemed regularized as Group-D employee in accordance with DOPT OM dated 10.09.1993 (Annexure-A2) and Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 29.11.1989. (Annexure- A1); and
(iii) Pass any such other orders or issue such other directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts & circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."
OA No.607/2024
(i) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the Respondents Board to consider the Applicant's prayer for grant of family pension and consequential benefits as are admissible to regular Group-D employee by treating the services of deceased N.Pillappa as deemed regularized as Group-D employee on the date of his death in accordance with DoPT OM dated 10.09.1993 and Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 29.11.1989; and S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.03.27 11:09:17+ 4 OA 469/2024 & 607/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
(iii) Pass any such other orders or issue such other directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts & circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."
3. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the applicant are that the applicant's husband late Shri N.Pillappa was a Skilled Farm Worker (Temporary Status) working at Seri-Biotech Research Laboratory, Central Silk Board, Bangalore. He was conferred with Temporary Status with effect from 01.07.2015 as per Government of India Scheme of 1993 (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation of Casual Labourer), modified by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as 19.03.2005. He expired in harness on 20.02.2023 after having served the organization for about 36 years which includes about 8 years service with temporary status. The applicant being illiterate, after coming to know that her husband was working as Skilled Farm Worker with temporary status, she is entitled to receive family pension and other pensionary benefits from the date of death of her husband as she is getting a meagre S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.03.27 11:09:17+ 5 OA 469/2024 & 607/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH pension from Employees Provident Fund Scheme, she submitted an application dated 12.08.2024 before the 2nd Respondent seeking family pension, in addition to representations dated 15.09.2023 and 21.09.2023 with a request to provide compassionate appointment. The request of compassionate appointment was rejected vide impugned order dated 03.10.2023 (Annexure A6), but there was no response to the request made for family pension. Being aggrieved, by the inaction of the respondents in not responding to her request for family pension, the applicant has preferred OA No.607/2024. Aggrieved by the rejection order regarding compassionate appointment, applicant has preferred OA No.469/2024.
4. Learned Counsel Shri Sampangi Ramaiah representing the applicant submitted that the Respondent's Board did not regularize the services of the husband of the applicant after completion of three years' service under Temporary Status Scheme and not even brought under GPF Scheme even after working for nearly eight years under Temporary Status Scheme before his death. The applicant's husband S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.03.27 11:09:17+ 6 OA 469/2024 & 607/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH had served the Board for about 36 years, out of which, nearly eight years under temporary status. Placing reliance on the decision of this Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No.1789/2018 (Jagbiri Devi vs. M/o Communications) (DD: 15.10.2019), learned counsel submitted that it is not appropriate to deny family pension to the widow of late employee simply because the said employee was not regularized, even after rendering 11 years of temporary status service. Since late Shri N.Pillappa, husband of the applicant has served eight years of service with temporary status, his services deemed to have been regularized on the date of the death and family members are entitled for family pension, death gratuity, leave encashment as are eligible for Group 'D' employees including compassionate appointment. Further, reliance is placed on the following judgments:-
a) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5907/2017 & C.M. Appeal No. 24603/2017 [Union of India & others vs. Munni Devi] [DD:
06.01.2020] S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.03.27 11:09:17+ 7 OA 469/2024 & 607/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
b) Writ Petition No. 19130/2007 C/W Writ Petition No. 20513/2007 [Sri S. Ramesha & others vs. The Member Secretary, Central Silk Board] [DD:19.10.2022]
c) OA No. 190-219/2016 [Mudalaiah & others vs. Union of India & others] [DD: 23.10.2018] against which Writ Petition No. 325/2020 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
d) OA No.189/2008 [S.K. Sharma vs. Union of India] [DD:
29.09.2023]
e) OA No. 147/2022 and connected matters [Santo Devi & others vs. The Secretary, ICAR, New Delhi & others] [DD:
25.08.2025]
f) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11934/2015 [Kuntesh & Another vs. Union of India & Another] [DD: 01.03.2016]
g) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3018/2012 [Sharda Devi vs. Union of India & others] [DD: 25.04.2013]
5. Detailed reply statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel Shri Vishnu Bhat representing the S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.03.27 11:09:17+ 8 OA 469/2024 & 607/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH respondents submitted that the deceased husband of the applicant was granted temporary status w.e.f 01.07.2015. However, the same has been modified to 19.03.2005 in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Sri. S. Ramesha & others vs. Union of India (supra). The services of Shri N.Pillappa were never regularized during his lifetime and at the time of his death, he was working as a Skilled Farm worker in temporary status only. Hence, provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 are not applicable to him.
The applicant's husband was granted with daily wages on par with Group 'D' scale including DA, HRA and CCA. Besides, the Central Silk Board has extended the benefits of Employee Provident Fund (EPF), Employee Pension Scheme (EPS), Employee Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme (EDLIS) as applicable to the Industrial Farm Worker along with other benefits viz., payment of gratuity equivalent to one month's wages for every completed year of continuous service, medical allowance, etc. Despite the Board adopting the Temporary Status Scheme, 1993 to its farm workers w.e.f. 01.07.2015 modified by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.03.27 11:09:17+ 9 OA 469/2024 & 607/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH as 19.03.2005, no regularization of SFW (TS) was undertaken due to the ban on filling up the post of MTS (erstwhile Group 'D') by the Ministry of Textiles vide letter dated 16.01.2014 (Annexure - R1) and due to surrendering/reduction in the overall sanctioned strength of Central Silk Board in compliance with the directions of the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs.
6. It is further submitted that the applicant herself has filed an application seeking for family pension under EPF Scheme. Death gratuity benefits of Rs.10,68,120/- has been released to the applicant immediately after the death of the applicant's husband. However, the Respondent Board cannot go beyond the scope of policy/Rules to extend the benefit to the applicant for which she is not entitled. Since the applicant's husband late Shri N.Pillappa was not absorbed/occupied against any regular post, the dependents are not eligible under the compassionate appointment scheme. S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.03.27 11:09:17+ 10 OA 469/2024 & 607/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. The undisputed facts are that the applicant's husband Late Shri N.Pillappa was conferred with the temporary status w.e.f. 01.07.2015. A reference was made by the Central Government before the Labour Court by exercising the powers under Section 10 (2A)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which reads as under:-
"Whether the claim of the Central Silk Board Employees' Union to adopt the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993 (for short 'the Scheme') and Pay scales of the 5th Pay Commission in respect of casual and timescale farm workers by the Management of Central Silk Board, Bangalore, is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?"
9. The Labour Court was pleased to dismiss the reference by passing the judgment in C.R. No. 122/1999 dated 19.09.2007 which was assailed in Writ Petition No.19130/2007 and connected matter S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.03.27 11:09:17+ 11 OA 469/2024 & 607/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The relevant paragraphs of the said Writ Petition order is extracted here under for ready reference:-
"19. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that pursuant to the report submitted by the Committee, the Respondent - Board in its 115th Meeting dated 19.03.2005 passed an unanimous Resolution resolving and deciding to implement the scheme in favour of the workmen of the Respondent - Board. The said Resolution passed by the Respondent - Board was approved by the Central Government vide approval dated 25.11.2005 and vide Communications dated 15.12.2005 and 10.01.2006, both the Central Government and Respondent - Board granted approval for extension of the scheme in favour of the workmen. Under these circumstances, the Labour Court was fully empowered and authorised to make / pass an award implementing and extending the benefit of the scheme to the workmen also.
20. As stated supra, despite having approved and granted the benefit of the scheme in favour of the workmen, the Central Government chose to unilaterally withdraw the same by passing the impugned order by issuing the S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.03.27 11:09:17+
12 OA 469/2024 & 607/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH communication dated 20.01.2006 followed by the Board's Circular dated 01.02.2006 without assigning any reason whatsoever and the same is illegal and arbitrary withdrawal is another circumstance leading to the sole conclusion that the workmen would be entitled to extension of the benefit of the scheme by extending the benefit of the scheme from 19.03.2005 onwards when the Respondent - Board resolved and decided to implement the scheme in favour of the workmen.
21. To put it differently, having regard to the undisputed fact that the Committee submitted a favourable report recommending implementation of the scheme which was accepted by the Respondent- Board which passed a Resolution on 19.03.2005, pursuant to which, the Central Government granted approval on 25.11.2005 which was thereafter accepted and confirmed by the Respondent - Board by issuing Circulars dated 15.12.2005 and 10.01.2006, I am of the considered opinion that in the peculiar / special facts and circumstances of the instant case, it would be just and appropriate to direct implementation of the scheme with retrospective effect from 19.03.2005 when the Respondent - Board resolved to implement the scheme in favour of the workmen. S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.03.27 11:09:17+ 13 OA 469/2024 & 607/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
22. The material on record also undisputedly establishes that during the pendency of the present petitions, the Central Government extended the benefit of the scheme on 11.06.2015 and the same has not been withdrawn. Viewed from this angle also, it is necessary to pass an award by extending the benefit of the scheme in favour of the petitioners from 25.11.2005 when the Central Government granted approval."
10. The operative portion of the order reads thus:-
"28. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Both the petitions are partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 19.09.2007 passed in C.R.No.122/1999 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-
Labour Court is hereby set aside.
(iii) The reference dated 16.11.1999 made by the Central Government stands allowed in part;
(iv) The Respondent - Board is hereby directed to implement, grant and extend the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.03.27 11:09:17+ 14 OA 469/2024 & 607/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Scheme of Government of India, 1993, in favour of the petitioners and all other workmen of the Respondent - Board together with all benefits accruing there from for the period from 19.03.2005 onwards and settle all the dues in their favour as expeditiously as possible and within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
11. This judgment was challenged by Central Silk Board in Writ Appeal No. 260/2023 along with Writ Appeal No. 468/2023 filed by the Secretary, Central Silk Board Employees Union arising out of the order dated 19.10.2022 in Writ Petition No. 20513/2007 before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and CCC No. 950/2023 filed by the Secretary, Central Silk Board Employees Union alleging disobedience of the order dated 19.10.2022 in Writ Petition No. 20513/2007 which came to be disposed of vide common order dated 05.11.2025. The relevant paragraph of the said order is quoted here under for reference:-
S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.03.27 11:09:17+ 15 OA 469/2024 & 607/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH "16. We notice that the Union has filed an appeal against the judgment on the ground that the resolution passed by the Board in its meeting held on 19.03.2005 was to extend the benefit of the Scheme. It is therefore contended that the Timescale Farm Workers working in the Board were entitled to the benefit of the Scheme with effect from 1993 itself and the limiting of the benefit from 19.03.2005 is therefore not proper."
12. Having analysed the matter, the Division Bench has dismissed both the Writ Appeals No. 260/2023 and 468/2023, closing the Contempt Case No. 950/2023 observing that no ground found to interfere in the exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge. Further directing that necessary action to be taken within a period of three months of receipt of certified copy of the said order. Thus, granting of temporary status to the applicant's husband, late Shri N.Pillappa is confirmed to be w.e.f. 19.03.2005.
13. In this background, we have examined the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant. S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.03.27 11:09:17+ 16 OA 469/2024 & 607/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH The major distinction that could be made from the so referred cases, relates to the date of granting of temporary status to the employee. The same is tabulated hereunder:-
Sl. Case Details Date of grant Date of death of No. of Temporary the employee Status 1 Union of India & others w.e.f. 23.09.2004 vs. Munni Devi 29.11.1989 2 S.K. Sharma vs. Union 29.11.1989 07.12.1994 of India 3 Santo Devi & others vs. w.e.f. 07.08.2009 The Secretary, ICAR, 01.09.1993 vide New Delhi & others order dated 03.01.1995 4 Kuntesh & Another vs. 01.12.1993 28.03.2012 Union of India & Another 5 Sharda Devi vs. Union of 29.11.1989 25.12.2006 India 6 Jagbiri Devi vs. M/o w.e.f. 30.11.2000 Communications 29.11.1989 vide order dated 30.09.1991
14. It is ex-facie apparent that in all the aforesaid judgments, temporary status was conferred on the respective employees on or before 01.01.2004, who died in harness before their regularization after serving for good number of years. As such, there is no cavil on granting of family pension to the widow S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.03.27 11:09:17+
17 OA 469/2024 & 607/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH of the respective deceased employee, notwithstanding no regularization but in the present case, the temporary status has been given w.e.f. 19.03.2005 in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, referred to supra.
15. No citation is placed on record to establish the case where the widow of an employee is made eligible for the family pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 notwithstanding temporary status granted to the employee subsequent to 01.01.2004. Hence, the aforesaid judgments would be of little assistance to the applicant since an employee can be treated on par with Group 'D' employee after rendering three years of service subsequent to grant of temporary status in terms of the Scheme dated 10.09.1993 issued by the DoPT. CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 makes it clear that the said Rules regulate retirement benefits for Central Government employees appointed before 1st January, 2004. In view of temporary status given w.e.f 19.03.2005 in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.03.27 11:09:17+ 18 OA 469/2024 & 607/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Karnataka, the applicant's case cannot be considered under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
16. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed strong reliance on DoPT OM dated 28.07.2016 to contend that Old Pension Scheme is applicable to all those casual labourers who are covered under the Scheme of 10.09.1993 even if they have been regularized on or after 01.01.2004. As held by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.19130/2007 confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.260/2023, the 1993 Scheme has been directed to be implemented w.e.f. 19.03.2005 when the respondent Board resolved to adopt the Scheme in favour of the workmen. Hence, this OM dated 28.07.2016 would not be applicable to the applicant. It is not in dispute that the benefits have been extended to the applicant's husband on par with regular Group 'D' scale including DA, HRA, CCA and further family pension is accorded to the applicant under the EPF Scheme.
S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.03.27 11:09:17+ 19 OA 469/2024 & 607/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
17. The judgment in Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) & others vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. & another (DD:
29.11.1989) reported in 1990 SCC Supl. 113, is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the deceased husband of the applicant was getting the benefits of temporary status, but the services were never regularized. Para 3 of the DoPT Policy on the Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme of Government of India, 1993 clearly stipulates that the said Scheme is applicable to casual labourers in employment of the Ministries / Departments of Government of India and their attached and subordinate offices, on the date of issue of the said orders. But it shall not be applicable to casual workers in Railways, Department of Telecommunication and Department of Posts who already have their own schemes. Hence, the Central Silk Board having its own Scheme and the Scheme being made applicable to the Central Silk Board w.e.f. 19.03.2005 (date of adoption of the Scheme) in terms of the order of the Hon'ble S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.03.27 11:09:17+ 20 OA 469/2024 & 607/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH High Court of Karnataka referred to supra, in our considered view, the applicant is not entitled for family pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
18. It is apt to refer to the order of this Tribunal (Circuit Bench at Ranchi in OA No.18/2013(R) - Hemlal Roy vs. Union of India and others dated 20.01.2014, wherein it is held that the main object to provide compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the sole bread earner. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Umesh Nagpal vs. State of Haryana [1994 SCC (4) 138]. Moreover, the deceased employee concerned was a temporary post holder. This order has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High of Jharkhand in W.P.No.6124/2015, further observing that applicant's mother therein was neither a regular employee nor the petitioner therein was dependent upon her and the applicant was barred by delay. Hence the claim of the applicant herein for compassionate S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.03.27 11:09:17+ 21 OA 469/2024 & 607/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH appointment also must fail since the applicant's deceased husband was not regularized.
19. However, it is significant to note that Writ Petition No. 325/2020 filed by the similarly placed employees seeking regularization is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Hence, it is needless to observe that this order shall be subject to result of Writ Petition No. 325/2020 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
20. Resultantly, OA stands disposed of in terms of above, subject to the result of Writ Petition No. 325/2020 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
No order as to costs.
sd/- sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.
S Sarala Devi
CAT Bangalore
S Sarala Devi
2026.03.27 11:09:17+