Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Shiv Balak vs Union Of India on 24 February, 2021
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)
Original Application No. 332/00062/2018
Date of Order: This, the 24th day of February, 2021
HON'BLE MR. A MUKHOPADHAYA, MEMBER (A)
Shiv Balak, aged about 60 years, son of Late Shri
Shukh Nandan, Resident of - Garhi Khan, Post- Saravan,
District- Raebareily.
... Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Praveen Kumar.
- Versus -
1. Union of India, through the Chief Post Master General,
U.P. Circle, Lucknow.
2. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Raebareily Division,
Raebareily.
3. The Post Master, Lalganj, HO Raebareily.
......Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta.
O R D E R (ORAL)
Heard both learned counsel for the applicant as well as for the respondents.
2. The central issue in this case is whether casual employees of the Postal Department who have been given 2 temporary status and have also been placed at par with Group-'D' employees but have not been formally regularised in service are entitled to pensionary benefits on retirement on par with formally regularised employee or not? In this connection, Shri Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, drew this Court's attention to a judgement passed by this Bench of the Tribunal dated 05.02.2016 in OA 54 of 2016 in which he asserted that a very similar issue had been comprehensively dealt with. Reading from the judgement, (Para-8), Shri Kumar emphasised that this Court, in the cited judgement, had referred at length to the judgement dated 01.02.2016 passed in Writ Petition No. 1331 (SB) of 2013 by the Hon'ble High Court. In this, the Hon. High Court had observed as follows with regard to the respondent Postal Department's Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme:
"As noticed earlier the Supreme Court had approved a Scheme for casual labours namely (Grant of Temporary Status in Regularization) Scheme. The said Scheme was drawn up by the Postal Department in consultation with the Ministries of Law, Finance & Personnel. The Scheme provides inter alia „temporary status‟ should be conferred on casual labours in employment as on 29.11.1989 and continued to be employed on the said date and have rendered continuous service of at least one year. It an employee get the temporary status he should be entitled for minimum of the pay scale for a regular Group D including DA/HRA and CCA. One of the important feature of the Scheme which has relevance for the present 3 controversy is that no recruitment from open market will be done till the casual labours were available to fill up the posts. The paragraph 17 of the Scheme is extracted hereunder below:
"17. No recruitment from open market for group „D‟ posts except compassionate appointment will be done till casual labourers with the requisite qualification are available to fill up the posts in question."
The Hon'ble High Court had further stated as follows:
"In our view the said rule clearly spells out its essential purpose, to give pensionary benefits to certain class of employees as „regular employee‟, notwithstanding the fact that no formal order of regularization was passed."
Finally, the Hon'ble High Court has observed in the cited judgement that "....the scheme has been framed by the Postal Department in compliance of the order of the Supreme Court and the said Scheme has been approved by the Supreme Court. Thus the Postal Department/ Petitioner herein cannot resile from its obligation to implement the said Scheme in letter and spirit."
3. Shri Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, argued that since the cited Tribunal judgement/order as well as the judgement/order in the Writ Petition referred to therein have attained finality, the plea made by the respondents, essentially to the effect that the departmental rules and instructions issued by them on later dates supersede the aforementioned Scheme, is not tenable in 4 law. He emphasised that the present applicant is quintessentially similarly situated to the applicant in OA No. 54 of 2016 and therefore, in these circumstances, the present OA should be allowed and this applicant should also be granted pensionary benefits as admissible to him in accordance with rules, as was decreed in favour of the applicant in the cited OA.
5. Per contra, while not distinguishing the present case from the case citation referred to by learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Prayagmati Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, reiterated that as the applicant, while having temporary status at par with Group -D at the time of his retirement, was not formally regularised in service, departmental rules and instructions do not entitle him for pensionary benefits in the manner sought.
6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of opposing counsel and have perused the judgement dated 05.02.2016 in OA No. 54 of 2016. It appears to be undisputed that an essential feature of the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of the respondent department, as stated in paragraph -17, is that no recruitment will be made from the open market for Group 'D' posts except for compassionate appointment as long as casual labourers with the requisite qualifications are available in the department to fill up these posts. The Respondent 5 department position's in this matter that when making any recruitment from sources other than casual labour holding requisite qualifications, they are proceeding as per departmental rules and instructions brought in force subsequent to the formulation of the regularization scheme for casual labour, is also taken care of in the cited Tribunal and High Court judgements with the Hon'ble High Court observing that "....the Scheme has been framed by the Postal Department in compliance of the order of the Supreme Court and the said scheme has been approved by the Supreme Court. Thus the Postal Department /Petitioner herein cannot resile from its obligation to implement the said Scheme in letter and spirit."
7. It is noticed that the order of Hon'ble High Court dated 1.02.2016 in the writ petition referred to, also observed that "In our view the said rule clearly spells out its essential purpose, to give pensionary benefits to certain class of employees as „regular employee‟, notwithstanding the fact that no formal order of regularization was passed."
8. In sum therefore, given the finality of judicial pronouncements discussed above which has not been challenged. I find the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that this applicant is similarly situated to the applicant in OA No. 54 of 2016 and therefore, is entitled to the same benefits as were extended 6 to that applicant, persuasive and convincing. Accordingly, this OA is allowed. The applicant is entitled for pension as admissible to him in accordance with rules. The respondents are therefore directed to complete the whole exercise with regard to computation and commence payment of such monthly pension along with arrears as due within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
9. There shall be no order as to costs.
(A.MUKHOPADHAYA) MEMBER (A) JNS