Karnataka High Court
Union Of India vs Smt Rajeshwari on 11 July, 2013
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, B.S.Indrakala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B S INDRAKALA
Writ Petition No.7258 of 2012 (S-CAT )
BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF POSTS
DAK BHAVAN
NEW DELHI - 110 001
2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL
KARNATAKA CIRCLE
PALACE ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001
3. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, R M S
BANGALORE SORTING DIVISION
BANGALORE GPA BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001 ... PETITIONERS
[By Sri B Pramod, Adv.]
AND:
SMT RAJESHWARI
D/O LATE MYLAR LINGAIAHA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
NO 7-III CROSS, NEHRU ROAD
MYSORE ROAD, HOSAGUDATHAHALLI
BANGALORE - 560 026 ... RESPONDENT
2
[By Sri M Raghavendrachar, Adv. ]
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 28.12.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE - A PASSED BY THE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH IN OA NO.
138/2010 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
SHYLENDRA KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition by the Union of India, The Chief Postmaster General and The Senior Superintendent, RMS, Bangalore, is directed against the order dated 28.12.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in Original Application No.138/2010. The Tribunal under the impugned order has held that the respondent, who was engaged by the petitioner - Organization as a casual labour in the year 1987 and who had been treated as having been given temporary casual labour status on 1.1.1995 was therefore, treated as a person, who has been given temporary casual labour status and who had been confirmed as temporary labour w.e.f. 1.1.1998 after completing three years of casual labour service had been 3 given certain benefits on par with temporary 'Group D' employees and who had retired in this position as on 31.12.2009 without being conferred the permanent status; that the respondent having been continued in the status of temporary casual labour, should be given pension on and from 1.1.2010 as she had rendered service even in the status of temporary casual employee for more than 10 years.
2. It is aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal, the present writ petition by the Union of India.
3. Appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, Mr. B. Pramod, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, has drawn our attention to the provisions of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1972 (for short 'the Rules') and submits that the very rules are not applicable to the person like the respondent, as the respondent had never been appointed as a Government servant to any pensionable post; that on the other hand, a person in 4 casual and daily rated employment is expressly excluded from the benefit under Rule 2 of this Rules; that there was never an order of retirement passed in favour of the respondent as an employee of the Central Government to claim pension and therefore, direction issued by the Tribunal is clearly in the teeth of Pension Rules and cannot be sustained.
4. Notice had been issued to the respondent and the respondent is represented by Mr.M. Raghavendrachar, learned counsel and submits that having regard to the circumstances, more so, when the respondent had worked as a casual labour from 1988 and had also been conferred the status of temporary casual employee w.e.f. 1.1.1998, it should be treated on par with Group D employees for pension benefits also and therefore, in the circumstances, there is no need to disturb the order of the Tribunal.
5. Mr. Raghavendrachar, learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on the Judgment of the 5 Supreme Court in the case of 'DAILY RATED CASUAL LABOUR EMPLOYED UNDER P & T DEPARTMENT THROUGH BHARTIYA DAK TAR MAZDOOR MANCH v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS' reported in 1988 [1] SCR 598 wherein the Supreme Court had taken note of the difficult conditions of casual workers in Group - D posts - lowest rank of the Government Department and also the Judgment in the case of 'BHASKAR GAJANAN KAJREKAR v. ADMINISTRATOR, DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI AND OTHERS' reported in [1993] 3 SCC 237 with reference to Rule 13 of CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972, what is pointed out is that if confirmation otherwise entitled for an employee is denied and on such premise pension cannot be denied as confirmation had been denied illegally etc.
6. Submission of Sri. Raghavendrachar is that as there were permanent posts vacant, the respondent should have been confirmed with the available regular vacancy post much before her retirement in which event, she would have 6 had the benefit of adding on the temporary status while in service also and therefore the Tribunal had taken note of such subsequent developments and had urged extension of pension and this court should not interfere with such order having regard to the development of law and at this point of time though this court had taken a different view earlier etc.
7. We find these are odd cases and if it is a fact that the person had worked as casual labour from the year 1987 onwards and the Tribunal under the circumstances had directed grant of pension and if had directed on and after the date of conferring temporary status casual employee on par with Group-D employee and therefore even pension which temporary status 'D' Group employee would have got on being confirmed should have been extended, we do not think we should interfere with such orders to the detriment of the respondent and having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, we do not go into 7 the question of eligibility under the rule and do not wish to disturb the order passed by the Tribunal and dismiss this writ petition.
8. We make it clear that this is not ruling given by the court for the purpose of laying down any law, but as an exceptional case having regard to the hardship faced by the respondent, we do not propose to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.
9. We grant four more months time from today to give effect to the order of the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE NG*AN/-