Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur
Paras Kanwar vs M/O Communications on 10 November, 2025
1 OA 190/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
Original Application No.190/2018
Date of pronouncement: 10.11.2025
Date of reserved : 24.09.2025
CORAM
HON'BLE Dr. AMIT SAHAI, MEMBER (A)
Paras Kanwar W/o Late Shri Laxman Singh, aged 55 years, R/o village
Narela, Kapasan, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).
[Husband of the applicant retired as Regular Mazdoor (RM) from the
office of Respondent No. 6].
......Applicant
By Advocate: Mr.M.S.Godara.
Versus
1. Union of India, through Secretary Ministry of Communication,
Department of Telecommunication, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Chief Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Bharat
Sanchar Bhawan, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane. Janpath, New
Delhi.
3. Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Rajasthan
Telecom Circle, Jaipur-6 (Rajasthan),
4. Controller of Communication (Accounts), Telecom Circle
Rajasthan, Department of Telecommunication, Sanchar Lekha
Bhawan, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
RADHE
SHYAM
SONGARA
2 OA 190/2018
5. Assistant General Manager (Administration), in the office of
Chief General Manager, Rajasthan Telecom, Sardar Patel March,
C-Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
6. Telecom District Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Gandhi
Nagar, Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).
....Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. B.L. Tiwari for DoT.
By Advocate: Mr. V.D. Vyas and Mr. Lalit Vyas for BSNL.
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Dr. Amit Sahai, Member (A) The instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking following relief:-
"(i) That the application may kindly be allowed; and
(ii) That the respondents may be directed to make the payment of retiral benefits admissible along with arrear and interest upon @ 9% per annum.
(iii) That the applicant may also be granted family pension w.e.f. 07.10.2017 as per her entitlement along with the retiral benefits of her husband.
(iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems just and proper in favour of the applicants may be passed."
2. Facts of the case in brief are as under:-
2.1 Late Shri Laxman Singh, husband of the applicant, while working under the respondent Department of Telecommunication, retired from the post of Regular Mazdoor (RM). The husband of the applicant was appointed on the post of Tiffin Boy in the Tiffin Room on 08.11.1987 3 OA 190/2018 and after closer of Tiffin Room, the respondents terminated his services on 22.05.1996. Thereafter, he approached to the learned Labour Tribunal by filing Labour Case No. 42/2000 which was allowed on 19.10.2001 directing reinstatement with continuity of service w.e.f. 22.05.1996. He joined his duties on 27.04.2002. Thereafter, vide letter dated 11.10.2013 he requested for regularization as well as absorption in the B.S.N.L. because by 01.10.2002 the employees of DoT under which he was working, were absorbed in BSNL.
2.2 Thereafter, the respondents obtained option form from late Shri Laxman Singh for his absorption in B.S.N.L, which was forwarded along with letter dated 19.02.2014. He superannuated on 31.01.2017. After his retirement, he submitted applications on 31.03.2017 and 26.04.2017 for his absorption and regularization. Nothing was done by the respondents during his life time and he expired on 07.10.2017. 2.3. Thereafter, the wife of Late Shri Laxman Singh, is continuously pursuing the matter with the respondents for getting retiral benefits as well as family pension. In this regard, the applicant has also submitted certificate under Rule 32 of Pension Rules of qualifying services. When nothing was done, the applicant served a legal notice to the respondents through her counsel on 03.05.2018 but of no avail. Hence, the applicant has filed the present OA.
3. In the reply filed by the DoT, it is submitted that since the husband of the applicant submitted his representation for regularization/absorption in BSNL first time in 2013, therefore, the 4 OA 190/2018 present OA is barred by the limitation. Repeated representation by deceased employee and the applicant cannot condone the statutory period of limitation. It is averred that until and unless necessary orders for regularization/absorption are issued in favour of late Shri Laxman Singh, no vested right has become available with the applicant for getting retiral and pension benefits.
4. In the reply filed by BSNL, it is averred that Part time and Full time Casual Labourers were engaged in the erstwhile Department of Posts and Telegraph (P&T)/Department of Telecom. All daily wagers working under different designations (mazdoors, casual labourer, contingent paid staff, daily wager, daily rated mazdoor and outsider etc.) were treated as casual labourers. The employment of part Time Casual Labourers was banned by the Department of Telecom vide order dated 14.08.1984 (Annexure-R/1) wherein it is stated that the case of regularisation of part time casual labourers has been discussed in the Standing Committee meeting of the Postal & Telegraph (P&T) Board and it has been decided that the existing part time casual labourers may be absorbed against regular vacancies in accordance with instructions issued vide this office letter dated 09-03-1983. It has also been decided that in future there will be no further recruitment of part time casual mazdoors in the Department.
4.1 Thereafter, the part time casual labour, who worked on 14.08.1984 in the Department were absorbed against regular vacancies of Group D posts and recruitment of part time mazdoors after 5 OA 190/2018 14.08.1984 in the Department are not permitted. It is averred that the policy regarding engagement of casual workers in Central Government Offices was reviewed by the Government keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in matter of Surinder Singh and Other vs. Union of India, decided on 17.01.1986, wherein certain conditions for employment of casual labour has been laid down. In pursuance to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Department of Telecom was sanctioned 14117 Group-D posts for regularization of casual labourers (full time and part time) vide letter dated 15-11-1988 and the eligibility conditions and clarifications for filling up these posts were circulated vide letter dated 18-11-1988 and 10-01-1989. The essential eligibility condition for regularization of part time casual labourers of Group D posts that "Part time casual labourers should have rendered a service of at least 240 days per year in any four years prior to 31-03-1987 (206 days per year for the period during which 5 day week is followed)." 4.2 The applicant's husband Late Shri Laxman Singh engaged on 08.11.1987 as Tiffin Boy by the then SDOT Chittorgarh as a part time casual labour for a period of less than 8 hours per day on daily wages basis. The complete ban was imposed on the employment of part Time Casual Labourers vide OM dated 14.8.1984 and the fresh recruitment/employment of full time casual labourers was also stopped vide order dated 30.03.1985, Therefore, the recruitment of part time mazdoors was not permitted after 14.08.1984 and the recruitment of full time mazdoors was not permitted after 22.06.1988. Hence, Late Shri 6 OA 190/2018 Laxman Singh engaged as part time casual labour after the ban imposed on such casual workers. He was not granted Temporary status because the scheme was applicable on full time casual workers. Also, he was not regularized to Group "D" post in view of order dated 18.11.1988, because he did not fulfil the eligibility conditions. 4.3 Since, the applicant's husband was engaged on 08.11.1987 as Tiffin Boy as a part time casual labourer, as per rule he is not granted the temporary status, hence, he is not eligible for GPF as well as pensionary benefits under the pension Rule of 37A. In a similar Original Application No. 617/2018 filed by Rajendra Kumar Saini &Others (BSNL employee) Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited before the Hon'ble CAT Jaipur Bench for seeking the benefits of Rule 37 A of CCS (Pension) Rule 1972 under which presidential order was to be issued and other consequential benefits granted, the Hon'ble Tribunal had dismissed the OA on the ground of limitation as well as on merits vide judgment dated 28.04.2022.
4.4 It is averred in the reply that work of late Shri Laxman Singh has been changed from part time casual labourer to full time casual labourer but his job or nature of work is not permanent. Further, the Ex-employee was engaged as a part time casual labour on muster roll for the time of less than eight Hours per day by the Department of Telecom and after formation of BSNL, they have been converted from part time casual labour into full time casual labourers and they enjoyed financial benefits against which he never objected. It is further averred in the reply that the 7 OA 190/2018 regularization of casual labourers is legally untenable in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 10.04.2006 and hence, it is not being followed by BSNL anymore. This view has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Judgment dated 16.01.2009 in Appeal (Civil) No. 292 of 2009 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7803 of 2006] in the case of BSNL Vs Teja Singh.
5. In rejoinder, the applicant while reiterating his stand taken in the OA submits that the husband of the applicant was regularly working on substantive post of RM Group-D in the regular pay scale, which is evident from the Pay slip of March 2003, September, 2006 and July 2007. From perusal of the pay slips, it is clear that late Shri Laxman Singh was not only working on the substantive post under Telecom Department but was also getting the regular pay scale and the deductions were also made as per Government. rates like GPF and Insurance, etc. However, the respondents have not paid any retiral benefits like commutation, gratuity, encashment of leave, GPF, etc.
6. Heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the material available on record.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. M.S. Godara, contended that the applicant's deceased husband was vigilant about his rights and repeatedly made representations for absorption. It is further stated that if the total length of service of the applicant's husband is considered, he is eligible for retiral benefits, such as family pension, as provided under Rule 32 of the Pension Rules of Qualifying Civil Services. Since the 8 OA 190/2018 applicant's husband served for more than 22 years, he was entitled to pension as an employee of DoT. Even if he was not officially absorbed in BSNL, he remained an employee of DoT until the date of his superannuation. Therefore, he must be entitled to pension and pensionary benefits.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn attention to the Option Form dated 13.02.2014, sent by the applicant's husband, agreeing to be absorbed in BSNL with effect from 01.10.2000. It is his case that even though the Respondents asked the Applicant's Husband to give this option for absorption, they never acted upon it. Therefore, he ought to be deemed an employee of either BSNL or DOT and consequently be entitled to pensionary benefits.
9. Per contra, Mr. B.L. Tiwari, learned counsel representing the DoT, submits that the O.A. (Original Application) is barred by the period of limitation and that it should be rejected on this ground alone.
On merits, it has been contended that since the respondents never passed an order of regularization in favour of the applicant's husband, there is no vested right whatsoever in the applicant, and she cannot claim any relief of pension, etc. He has further contended that since the husband of the applicant failed to avail of his statutory remedies, if any, during his lifetime, such a right was not an inheritable right. Therefore, the applicant herein cannot maintain the present application. He has relied on several decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court and Honourable 9 OA 190/2018 High Courts in this regard, all of which will be examined by this Tribunal.
10. At this juncture, it is relevant and necessary to mention that the reply of the Department of Telecommunications and BSNL in the present O.A. is identical. Even the written submissions that have been filed have been filed in common. This leads to a prima facie conclusion that for the purposes of the present lis, in relation to absorption of DOT Employees into BSNL; DoT is BSNL, and BSNL is the DoT. Essentially, all employees who were part of the DoT were absorbed into BSNL, and at the time of their absorption, they were given an option as to whether they wished to remain with DoT or be absorbed by BSNL.
11. In the facts of the present case, it is evident that the husband of the applicant was also given the identical choice in the year 2014, and he exercised this option, wishing to be absorbed in BSNL. It is the Respondents who, after giving him the right and option to exercise such option, failed to pass any orders for regularization.
12. In a nutshell, the case set out by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents is that since the Presidential order for actual absorption into the services of BSNL was never passed in respect of the applicant's husband, he is not entitled to any benefits. Consequently, she is also not entitled to any post-retirement benefits or even to make a claim for such post-retirement benefits.
13. I find it extremely difficult to agree with such a contention. This is for the following reasons. The Respondents have paid the applicant's 10 OA 190/2018 husband's salary for a very large number of years, and he has actively rendered service. As per his Pay-slips placed on record the respondents even allotted him the GPF No. TC\RJ\12007 and deducted an amount every month as GPF and CGEGIS subscription. Merely because a presidential order was not passed, which, in the opinion of this Tribunal, was the responsibility of the respondents themselves, they cannot deny that the applicant's husband was an employee. Therefore, he must necessarily be entitled to benefits that accrue to other employees.
14. The respondents have also raised a preliminary objection stating that the present original application is not maintainable at the behest of the applicant herein as she herself was not an employee; rather, it was her deceased husband who was working as an employee at the respondent organization. It has specifically been stated that the right to sue before this Tribunal for the enforcement of rights available to him is not an inheritable right. Therefore, the right of a deceased employee cannot be exercised by anyone, including the applicant wife herein.
15. In order to buttress the submission, the respondents have relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts in Vinayak Purushottam Dubey versus Jayashree Padmakar, AIR 2024 SC 1386, and Rakesh Kumar Verma versus HDFC, 2025 INK
473. They have further relied on decisions of the High Court of Rajasthan in Keshavpuri versus Union of India, 1979 RLW (Raj) 509 (DB), and Vinayak Kumar versus State of HP, 2024 SCC OnLine HP 2700. I shall proceed to deal with these cases one at a time.
11 OA 190/201816. The first judgment cited by the respondents, i.e., Vinayak Purushottam Dubey (supra), is a case relating to the Consumer Protection Act. It was also concerned with the impact of the dissolution of a sole proprietorship and how the legal heirs of the sole proprietor [should be treated] in the context of a purchase of a flat. It has no bearing or relevance to the present case, except insofar as it explains the difference between personal rights and rights relating to status. The application of such a principle in respect of a contract of employment, like the one which is the subject matter of the present dispute, would only be in a situation relating to the termination of the employee, or promotion, or any other dispute where it was necessary for him himself to remain alive.
17. The other judgment to buttress this proposition relied upon by the respondents is the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the Rakesh Kumar Verma versus HDFC Bank case. An appraisal of this case shows that it has nothing to do with the facts of the present case as it is related to a civil suit regarding employment with a private bank, which has no application whatsoever to the present case.
18. Similarly, the judgment in Vinay Kumar versus State of HP is also of no assistance to the respondents, as the son of the deceased employee was held not entitled to maintain a claim since he was not entitled to the benefit of the family pension that such employee have been entitled to.
19. The respondent has also relied upon the decision of the 12 OA 190/2018 Honourable Rajasthan High Court in Keshavpuri versus Union of India. But this is a case in which the Court held that after the death of the employee, the question as to whether the order of compulsory retirement he suffered was correct or not is a moot question and that the right to sue does not survive.
20. No doubt, the employment itself was a contractual right. But a large portion of those rights, such as gratuity, pension, etc., had crystallized, which were meant to inure to the benefit of his wife and other dependents. Any leftover salary or arrears for work already done before an employee's demise would also naturally, therefore, be the rightful property of the legal heirs. Therefore, while the right to continue to work and receive salary, along with the right to not be terminated unlawfully or without cause, would not survive the death of the person in service; however, any monetary claims, such as gratuity, pension, or balance unpaid wages, can always be claimed and recovered by the legal heirs and dependents of such employee.
21. In any case, family pension by its very nature is meant to support both the husband and the wife in a couple or relationship where one of the spouses is a pension holder. If the argument of the respondent is accepted, it would lead to a calamitous situation and virtually rewrite the understanding of the word 'pension'. It is a well-known fact that in all such pension schemes, regardless of the death of the spouse who was the dependent or the person who did the job which made them eligible to receive pension, family pension is payable until the death of both 13 OA 190/2018 spouses. Therefore, this argument, though attractive at first blush, is liable to be dismissed and rejected.
22. In the upshot of the present discussion, the present O.A. is allowed, and it is held that the deceased was an employee of the BSNL, and rendered continuous service of over 22 years at the time of his death. He and the Applicant who is wife, are therefore entitled to the retiral benefits and dues which have accrued to him as a result of his service.
23. The Respondents are therefore directed to release all pensionary and retiral benefits due and already accrued to the Applicant, such as gratuity, etc. within 2 months on receipt of a certified copy of this Order. Failing which the applicant shall be entitled to simple interest @ 7% per annum after the 2 months' period until the date of payment.
24. The Respondents shall also ensure that all family pension that was payable to the Applicant is paid within this period of 2 months, and that in the future timely payments of the family pension take place. Accordingly, this OA is allowed with no orders as to cost.
(Dr. AMIT SAHAI) MEMBER (A) rss