Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Aman Kumar vs M/O Communications on 8 September, 2025
Reserved on 30th July, 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
*********
Original Application No. 322 of 2019
Allahabad this the 08th day of _September, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member-J
Aman Kumar, aged about 27 years, S/o Late Bhai Lal, R/o Village- Rausar
Kothi, Post- Khas, District- Shahjahanpur.
Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Pradeep Kumar Dubey
Vs.
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Communication,
Deptt. of Postal, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
2. Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow.
3. Post Master General, Bareilly Region, Bareilly-243001.
4. Superintendent of post Offices, Shahjahanpur Division,
Shahjahanpur-242001.
Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Subhash Chandra Mishra
ORDER
Shri Pradeep Kumar Dubey, counsel for the applicant and Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra, counsel for the respondents are present and heard.
2. By the instant O.A. the applicant has prayed for following relief(s):
-
"1. To consider for quashing impugned order dated 21.07.2017 (A-1) by calling for original records.
2. To consider for issuing orders or directions, commanding the respondents for deciding the compassionate appointment on pending representations ending dated 28.06.2017 (A-8) by withdrawing impugned orders (A-1) and immediate considering the pending matter for MANISH MEHROTRA compassionate appointment.2
3. To consider any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. To award the cost of the application throughout."
3. The facts of case, as per pleadings in O.A., are that the applicant's father Late Bhai Lal was initially appointed as Contingency Paid Chaukidar in the year 1975. The applicant's father was granted temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989 and in the seniority list of temporary status Group-D officials, his name was placed at serial No. 3 and he was treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employee on 29.11.1992. Thereafter, on 14.12.2012, he was directed to complete computer training as C.P. Chaukidar. It is submitted by the applicant that on 30.11.2013, the father of applicant was died due to accident and mental shock. However, as a retiral benefits, nothing have been allowed to the applicant. Counsel for the applicant submitted that due to indigent condition, the applicant applied for compassionate appointment on 20.12.2013. However, his representation, after near about two years, was rejected on 17.12.2015. It is submitted by the applicant's counsel that due to poverty and illness, mother of applicant also died on 05.10.2016 leaving behind one son and two unmarried daughters. The applicant again on 24.06.2017 applied for compassionate appointment and on 19.07.2017, his representation was forwarded to the PMG, Bareilly and SPO, Shahjahanpur for necessary action. It is submitted by the applicant's counsel that the representation of applicant was not considered and rejected in arbitrary and cryptic manner by the respondents vide impugned order dated 21.07.2017. The applicant has relied upon the Judgment of this Tribunal, of the Hon'ble High Court as well as of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Aggrieved with the non-action on the part of respondents, the applicant has filed the present O.A.
4. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein MANISH MEHROTRA they have submitted that the applicant has approached this Tribunal belatedly and the impugned order passed by the respondents is a 3 reasoned order. It is also submitted by the respondents that the applicant has earlier filed an O.A. No. 1829 of 2019 before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, which was dismissed on 03.09.2019. It is admitted by the respondents that the father of applicant granted temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989 and in pursuance of the same, he was treated as temporary Grade 'D' employee w.e.f. 29.11.1992. It is submitted by the respondents that a D.P.C. was held on 26.11.2012 for regularization of casual labours in MTS cadre but, as the applicant's father refused to work on account of health problem, his name was not recommended for regularization. Hence, the applicant's father could not be regularized. The applicant had submitted his representation on 22.02.2017 for appointment on compassionate ground. It is submitted by the respondents that as per DOPT 14014/02/2012-Estt (D) dated OM No. 16.01.2013 circulated vide Postal Directorate New Delhi No. 37-4/2013- SPB-I/C dated 04.02.2013, the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment against the departmental post is only applicable to a dependent of Government servant (who was appointed on regular basis and not working on daily wage or casual or apprentice or ad-hoc or contract or re- employment basis). The applicant is not covered under the Scheme. The respondents also submitted that later on, Department of Posts vide its OM dated 17.12.2015 issued order for compassionate engagement to one of the dependant family members of such casual labourer engaged on or before 01.09.1993 to the available GDS post only in case where one dies while at work due to terrorist activity/dacoity/robbery/serious accident/natural calamity like fire, flood, earthquake etc. Since the condition of death of late Bhai Lal does not fulfill for compassionate engagement under the above DOP order, the applicant was not found eligible to be considered for compassionate engagement to GDS post. The applicant was intimated vide SPOs, Shahjahanpur letter dated 21.07.2017 accordingly. In view of the above facts, the respondents have prayed for MANISH MEHROTRA dismissal of the O.A. being devoid of merits.
4
5. Counsel for the applicant has filed the rejoinder affidavit reiterating the facts, already stated in the O.A.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
7. The records show that the applicant's father was appointed as a Contingency Paid Chaukidar in the year 1975 and he was granted 'Temporary Status', effective from 29.11.1989. It is mentioned that the father of applicant had been continuously serving since 1975. Therefore, it is undisputed that 'Temporary Status' was granted to him on 29.11.1989 and he died during the service period due to accident on 30.11.2013. After the death of father of applicant, the applicant applied for compassionate appointment on 20.12.2013. Firstly, he was given assurance by the respondents and thereafter vide order dated 17.12.2015 representation of the applicant was rejected by the respondents. The mother of applicant also died on 05.10.2016 and as the applicant along with his two unmarried sisters were facing days of starvation, he again applied for compassionate appointment on 24.06.2017 and the same was forwarded on 19.07.2017 to the PMG, Bareilly and SPO, Shahjahanpur. The applicant submitted that vide order dated 21.07.2017, his representation was rejected in a very arbitrary manner. Per contra, the respondents have submitted that the applicant is not entitled for compassionate appointment as his father was not a regular employee.
8. From the pleadings, it is apparent that the respondents have overlooked the fact that the deceased employee's engagement as casual labour was from 1975 and his continuous service was more than 10 years as casual labor and due to delay and inaction on the part of the department, his case was not considered for regularization. Counsel for the applicant submitted that as per government of India orders dated MANISH MEHROTRA 30.11.1992, the temporary status after 3 years of continuous service 5 once granted, the employee would be treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employee and is entitled for all benefits of government servant and in the case of premature death before three years of retirement, one of the family member is entitled for compassionate appointment.
9. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the issue has been settled by several decisions of CAT, High Court, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. If the temporary status has been granted then after 03 years the employee will deemed to be regularized. The applicant was receiving all the benefits of a regular employee of Group 'D' post, therefore, the respondents cannot deny the benefit of pension and the post retiral benefits.
10. The only contention of respondents' counsel is that the applicant being Contingency Paid Chaukidar was regularized along with others by an erroneous order. However, these facts do not change the status of applicant as Contingency Paid Chaukidar with the temporary status who was working in the pay scale of Group 'D' employee.
11. From the perusal of the law, it appears that the controversy involved in this case has already been settled by various decisions of CAT, High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court etc.
12. Temporary status to the employees has been granted in pursuance of a Scheme known as Casual Labours (Grant of Temporary Status in Regularization) Scheme. The said Scheme was formulated by the Department of Post, Government of India vide communication dated 12.04.1991 issued by the Director General, Department of Post, New Delhi in compliance of the interim order dated 31.01.1989 passed in W.P. No.1276 of 1986 by the Supreme Court. The aforesaid writ petition was finally decided on 29.11.1989 along with two other writ petitions [Writ Petition No. 1276, 1623 and 1624 of 1986] in Jagrit Mazdoor MANISH MEHROTRA Union (Regd.) &Ors. Vs. Mahanagar 5 Telephone Nigam Ltd. & 6 Anr.,1989 SCR Supl (2) 329 = 1990 SCC Supl.113 = JT 1989 Supl. 364 = 1989 SCALE (2) 1455. Relevant paras of the order of the Supreme Court in the said writ petition are quoted here in under:-
"On 31.01.1989, when the Writ Petition No. 1276 of 1986 came up for hearing before this court, the following order was made:
'learned counsel for the petitioners concedes that the regularization of 21,000.00 employees in the Department of Telecommunications has been effected but complains that no such proceeding has taken place in respect of the postal employees. He states that there is pressing need for a parity of service conditions including pay, house rent allowance and other allowances between the temporary employees and the regular employees covered by this category. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India assures us that the scheme will be finalised latest by first week of April, 1989 and that complete position will be placed before the court at that stage...' The scheme known as "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status in Regularisation) Scheme" has been formulated and put into operation from 01/10/1989 and a copy thereof has been placed for our consideration. We find that the scheme is comprehensive and apart from provision for conferment of temporary status, it also specifies the benefits available on conferment of such status. Counsel for the respondent- Nigams have told us that the scheme will be given full effect and other benefits contemplated by the scheme shall be worked out. In these circumstances, no further specific direction is necessary in the two applications relating to the two Nigams of Bombay and Delhi except calling upon the respondents to implement every term of the scheme at an early date."
13. 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. If an employee gets the temporary status he MANISH MEHROTRA should be entitled for minimum of the pay scale for a regular Group D 7 including DA/HRA and CCA. One of the important features of the Scheme which has relevance for the present 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 appointments will be done till casual labourers with the requisite qualification are available to fill up the posts in question."
14. In the case of Union of India and others Vs. Shyam Lal Shukla, 2012(1) ADJ698 = 2011 AHC 175055 [DB] [Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.60272 of 2009 decided on 23.12.2011], temporary status was granted w.e.f. 29.11.1989. The O.A. No.1626 of 2005 was allowed on 28.07.2009 by a single bench of CAT Allahabad. The D.B. of Allahabad High Court dismissed the Writ petition filed against the aforesaid decision and said: -
"From the perusal of Rule 154 A of Manual it is manifestly clear that the Chowkidar, Sweeper, Malis, Khalassis who worked side by side with regular or with employees in Work Charge Establishment should be brought on regular Establishment and should be treated 'regular employees'. The Rule itself has used the word 'regular employee' without any reference to formal order of regularization. The Tribunal has relied on Rule 154 A of the Manual of appointment and allowances of the Officers of the Indian Post & Telegraphs Department. It is, undisputed fact that the respondent no.1 has worked and has received the payment from contingent fund w.e.f. 10.4.1982 to 26.11.1989 i.e. Seven Years Six Months and Nineteen days, thereafter from the consolidated fund of Central Government from 26.11.1989 to 29.11.1992 three years and then from 30.11.1992 till the date of retirement i.e. 30.6.2003 as temporary Government Employee of Group D, for ten years Seven months and One day. The total qualifying service for pension comes to 17 years, four months and 10 days.
It is admitted case that the respondent no.1 from his initial engagement i.e. 10.4.1982 till his date of superannuation i.e. 30.6.2003 has worked uninterruptedly and to the entire satisfaction of the Department as has been stated in the Counter Affidavit, Supplementary Counter Affidavit before the Tribunal and in the Writ Petition before this MANISH MEHROTRA Court and there is no mention that the work of the respondent no.1 was unsatisfactory.8
The Tribunal has also relied on the order of the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal dated 13.1.1997 arising out of the Original Application No. 159/93 of Tribunal, in the case of (Ram Lakhan v. Union of India and others) as well as order dated 2nd September, 2005 in Original Application No. 917 of 2004, (Chandi Lal versus. Union of India and others). The aforesaid orders were on the record of the Tribunal as Annexure-AR-2 and AR-3 with affidavit filed on 26.8.2008 in similar facts.
In our view the said Rule clearly spells out its essential purpose, to give pensionary benefit to certain class of employees as 'regular employee', notwithstanding the fact that no formal order of regularization was passed."
15. The S.L.P. No. 12664/2012, against the aforesaid judgment was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.08.2012 by saying:-
"Delay Condoned. We find no merit in this petition for special leave to appeal. It is dismissed."
16. In O.A No. 917/04 [Chandi Lal Vs. U.O.I and Ors.] decided on 2.9.2015 by CAT, Allahabad Bench, the applicant was working in the Department of Posts on work charge establishment w.e.f. 15.04.1982. He was granted temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989 and thereafter, he was brought on the pay scale of Group 'D' employees and also accorded service benefits admissible to the Group 'D' employee. Though no formal order of the regularisation was issued in the said case but the Tribunal held the applicant entitled to pension treating him a Group 'D' regular employee. The Writ Petition No. 11297/2006 filed against the said order was dismissed by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court vide order dated 02.03.2007 reported in 2007 AHC 2752 (DB) and Hon'ble Supreme Court also upheld the order of Tribunal and High Court vide order dated 03.03.2008 passed in SLP (Civil) No. 3248/2008. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP not only on account of Delay but also on merits. The Supreme Court said:-
"There is an inordinate delay of 223 days in filing the present petition. The explanation offered in the application for condonation of delay is neither MANISH MEHROTRA satisfactory nor reasonable. The application for condonation of delay is, therefore, dismissed.9
Even on merits, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Consequently the special Leave petition is dismissed both on ground of delay and merit."
17. The cases of Chandi Lal [Supra] and Shyam Lal Shukla [Supra] went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it has been settled that such employees shall be deemed to have been regularized and consequently required to be treated as regular employees of the respondents' department and consequently, they are entitled to all pensionary benefits.
18. The aforesaid both judgments have been followed by Allahabad High Court in:-
"(1) Writ petition No. 68773 of 2014 decided on 10.02.2015.
(2) Judgment dated 11.01.2018 passed by D.B. of Allahabad High Court in Writ-A No. 75830 of 2010 [U.O.I. Vs. Krishna Pal Singh] and 4 connected writ Petitions.
(3) Union of India Vs. Heera Lal and Another, Writ-A No. 10505 of 2023 [Neutral citation No. 2023: AHC 228061 -DB] Allahabad High Court."
19. By following the aforesaid cases of Shyamlal (Supra) and Chandilal (Supra), this Tribunal also passed the order in:-
(1) Bacchu Lal Vs. U.O.I. etc., O.A. No. 1035 of 2021 decided on 08.02.2023, (2) Zamaluddin Vs. U.O.I.,etc., O.A. No. 1266 of 2011 decided on 07.04.2016, and, (3) Lalmani Devi Vs. U.O.I.etc., O.A. No. 474 of 2020 decided on 31.08.2023.
(4) Rasheed and another Vs. U.O.I. etc., O.A. No. 1073 of 2015 decided on 18.07.2023.
20. Recently vide order dated 01.12.2023 the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Writ (A) Petition No.10505/2023 (Union of Page No.10 India & Ors. vs. Heera Lal & Anrs.) has also taken a similar view and held that: -
MANISH MEHROTRA "We are also mindful of the fact that no such exercise is required to be made in the present facts as the respondent and others are individual 10 citizens, pitted against the almighty State that too none other than the Union of India. A citizen who has given all his productive life to Union of India, may not be out witted on legal niceties and procedural technicalities at the behest of the Union of India. The respondent has no option available to survive in life or to do anything other than what he did for more than 30 years i.e. to serve the Union of India. His productive years are lost. Accordingly, interference is declined. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
38. Let all pensionary dues be computed and paid out to the respondent within next three months, in any case not later than 31.03.2024, failing which the same may attract interest @ 6 % per annum."
21. In the present case, the applicant's father was granted 'temporary status' w.e.f. 29.11.1989. According to the aforesaid legal position, he will be treated as a 'regular employee from the date 29.11.1989'. He died due to accident while on duty on 30.11.2013. Though no formal order of the regularisation was issued in this case but in the aforesaid case laws, the Hon'ble Supreme Court/High Court/ Tribunal held the applicant entitled for pension treating him a Group 'D' regular employee. The case of present applicant is similarly situated as his father was appointed as C.P. Chaukidar and later he was granted temporary status on 29.11.1989. Hence, the applicant is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment.
22. Therefore, after consideration, the OA is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.07.2017 is hereby quashed being non-reasoned. The respondents are directed to consider the case of applicant for compassionate appointment. As 12 years have already been passed, the respondents are directed to consider the case of applicant for compassionate appointment at the earliest preferably within next three months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. All the pending MAs shall be deemed to have been disposed of. No order as to costs.
MANISH MEHROTRA (Rajnish Kumar Rai)
Member (Judicial)
/M.M/