Patna High Court
The Union Of India & Ors vs Kritnarain Singh on 4 September, 2017
Author: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10978 of 2017
===========================================================
1. The Union Of India through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of
Communication, Department of Posts, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director General, Department of Posts, Government of India, Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
3. The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, G.P.O. Complex, Patna.
4. The Postmaster General, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur
5. The Director of Accounts (Postal), Patna. Offices, Champaran Postal Division,
Motihari.
6. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Champaran Postal Divsiion, Motihari.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
Kritnarain Singh, Son of Kamal Singh, Resident of Village-Barka Baula, P.O.-
Patahi, P.S.-Patahi, District-East Champaran.
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar Sharan, Asstt.S.G.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, CGC
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI)
Date: 04-09-2017
Heard counsel for the Union of India.
The order under challenge is dated 18.02.2016 passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in
O.A.900 of 2012.
O.A. was filed by the private respondent for
finalization of his pension and grant of its benefits under CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972, since he was granted temporary status of
Group-D employee after a long period of work initially as a causal
Patna High Court CWJC No.10978 of 2017 dt.04-09-2017 2
Chowkidar/Night Guard in the Department.
Plea was taken before the Tribunal by the present
petitioners that the service of the private respondent was not
regularized nor he worked on a regular Group-D post till his
retirement. Therefore, he is not entitled to the pensionary benefits.
The Tribunal has taken note of the following facts
which has relevance:-
"We have perused the pleadings as well as
judgments placed by the applicants. It is noted that the
Full Bench of this Tribunal, after considering the
circular of the Department, has held that since, New
Pension Scheme will not be applicable to the
applicants who have acquired Temporary Status of
Group-D employees much before 01.01.2004. It has
also been held that the applicants after confirmation of
temporary status, they are entitled to be treated at par
with group-„D‟ employees for the purpose of
contribution to General Provident Fund. Moreover, the
Hon‟ble High Court, Patna in their recent judgment
dated 15.12.2015 passed in CWJC No.17204 of 2015
has observed interalia:-
"4. The Tribunal, noticing the Full Bench
judgment as well as the judgment of the
Karnataka High Court in this regard in favour of
the employees, held that they would be covered
by the Old Pension Scheme. To us, the problem is
simple. The New Pension Scheme would apply to
persons coming in Government Service after
1.1.2004. The applicants before the Tribunal were first casual labourers, but with effect from Patna High Court CWJC No.10978 of 2017 dt.04-09-2017 3 1989 they acquired the temporary status or the status of a temporary employees of the Government in the department of Post. After three years of such continuous services, they were entitled to certain benefits, which a permanent Group-D employees gets. They were receiving the same, pending confirmation in service as a permanent employee. Towards pensionary benefits, G.P.F. deductions were made. Then came cut-occurred in the year 2011, they were substantially appointed as permanent employees. To us, the answer would be evident from the fact that they were already in service prior to 1.1.2004, though in a temporary status. To us, it appears that the meaning of the Scheme, which puts the cut-off date as 1.1.2004 is that all those persons, who have come in service after 1.1.2004 would be covered by the New Pension Scheme. As noted and state above, the applicants before the Tribunal, the respondents herein, were already in service, though in temporary status prior to the cut-off date. To them, this cut-off date would not apply, and consequently they would be deemed to be in service on 1.1.2004 having been confirmed as permanent employees in Group-D with effect from 2011. Thus, we find no error in the judgment and order of the Tribunal.
5. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
Moreover, as per Clause-6 of their own Scheme dated 15.05.1991, 50% of the service rendered under Temporary Status would be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits after regularization as regular group „D‟ official. As the applicant is granted temporary status prior to 01.01.2004 and was subsequently regularized as group-D. As per the Scheme of the respondents, 50% of the service rendered under Temporary Status to be counted for the purpose of retiral benefits and they cannot be treated Patna High Court CWJC No.10978 of 2017 dt.04-09-2017 4 as new entrants."
The Tribunal, therefore, has taken a correct view because in similar and identical circumstances the High Court had held in favour of an employee and that judgment/order stands and holds the field.
In view of the above, the writ has no merit. It is dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) Arvind/-
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 06.09.2017 Transmission Date