Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs Union Territory on 31 March, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
CHANDIGARH
Date of filing of OA :28.03.2016
Pronounced on: 31.03.2016
Reserved on : 29.03.2016
OA No. 060/00267/2016
Coram: Honble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal, Member(J).
Honble Mrs. Rajwant Sandhu, Member(A).
Kewal Singh s/o Late Sh. Gulzar Singh, R/o H. No. 43, Phase I, Bapu Dham Colony, Sector 26, Chandigarh.
..Applicant
By Advocate : Sh. G.S. Sathi
Versus
1. Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration, through its Secretary, Department of Engineering, UT Civil Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
2. Chief Engineer, Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration, UT Civil Secretariat Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
3. Municipal Corporation Chandigarh, through its Commissioner, MC Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
..Respondents
O R D E R
By Honble Mrs. Rajwant Sandhu, Member(A):-
1. This OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
(i) To declare that the service rendered by the applicant on daily wage work charge basis from 01.04.1987 to 04.11.1994 before regularization of his service (vide order Annexure A-2) is liable to be taken into consideration for determination of pension and other retiral benefits.
(ii) To direct the respondents to consider the service rendered by the applicant as Painter Grade II on daily wage work charge basis from 01.04.1987 to 04.11.1994 before regularization (vide order Annexure A-2) for determination of pension and other retiral benefits with further directions to the respondents to accordingly revise the pension and other retiral benefits of the applicant and grant all consequential benefits in the nature of difference in the amount of gratuity, revision of pensionary benefits alongwith arrears thereof.
(iii) To issue appropriate directions to the respondents to accordingly revise the pension and other retiral benefits of the applicant pursuant to grant of the reliefs and grant all consequential benefits in the nature of arrears and revision of pensionary benefits.
2. At the time of hearing on admission, Sh. G.S. Sathi, learned counsel for the applicant narrated the background of the matter. He stated that the applicant joined as Painter on daily wage work charge basis in the office of XEn, CP Division No. 2 (Roads), Engineering Department, Chandigarh Administration on 01.04.1987. The applicant was regularized in service and appointment letter in this regard was issued to him on 04.11.1994(Annexure A-2). Later, on formation of the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, he was transferred to Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh vide letter dated 21.05.1996 (Annexure A-3). The applicant retired as Painter Grade II on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.04.2011 from the office of XEn, MC Division No. 3 (Roads), Chandigarh. He was sanctioned pension vide PPO No. 708551204136 w.e.f. 01.05.2011. The grievance of the applicant is that while determining pension and other retiral benefits, the service rendered by the applicant from 01.04.1987 to 04.11.1994 had not been counted towards qualifying service. He had submitted representations in this regard, but to no avail.
3. It is further stated that vide Memo No. P2/2015/824 dated 23.03.2015 issued by the Chief Engineer, UT Chandigarh addressed to the Chief Engineer, MC, Chandigarh under the subject Regarding regularization of daily wage/work charged employees working in various departments of Chandigarh Administration, it was stated that in light of the judgement of the Honble Supreme Court of India in case of UT Chandigarh & Anr. Vs. Sampat Singh & Ors., the work charge/daily wage employees working prior to 1992 shall be given the benefit as per CPWD Manual which includes pension also. The definition of Work-charged establishment as defined in para 1.01 of the CPWD Manual, Vol-III reads as under:-
1.01. Definition of Work-charged Establishment.
Broadly speaking work-charged establishment means that establishment whose pay, allowances etc. are directly chargeable to Works. Work-charged staff is employed on the actual execution of a specific work, sub-works of a specific work, etc. The cost of work-charged establishment should invariably be shown as a separate sub-head of the establishment for a work. In other respects, the work-charged staff is quite comparable to the regular categories. Thus, there is no distinction in the status of service rendered by employees engaged on work-charge establishment either on daily wage basis or on regular basis. Further, the Chief Engineer, UT, Chandigarh vide his letter dated 11.01.2016 informed that DOPT, UT, vide UO No. 28/64-IH(7)-2015/26166 dated 23.12.2015 has clarified as under:-
A.D. is informed that the conditions mentioned in the letter No. 28/64-IH(7)-2015/5459 dated 13.3.2015 are applicable to the daily wage/work-charged employees (Group C & D) who have completed 10 years of service till December, 2006.
4. It is also stated that the claim of the applicant for consideration of the service rendered by him on daily wage work-charged basis for the purpose of determination of pension and other retiral benefits is covered by a number of judgements rendered by this Tribunal and upheld by the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court as well as the Apex Court. Some of the cases that have been cited are OA No. 60/CH/2002 titled Badri & Ors. Vs. UT Chandigarh & Ors. decided on 28.07.2003 and OA No. 1072-CH-2002 titled Raj Pati Vs. UOI that was preferred by the widow of a work-charged employee who died after retirement without regularization of service. Besides, even daily wage workers who have rendered ten years service and whose services were never regularized, were held entitled to pension and other retiral benefits.
5. We have given our careful consideration to the matter. The claim of the applicant is not supported by adequate documentation. There is nothing to show that the applicant had rendered his daily wage work-charged service w.e.f. 1987 to 1994 in continuity. No rules have been cited under which the claim of the applicant for counting daily wage service as qualifying service for pensionary benefits can be considered. Besides, although learned counsel for the applicant has not furnished copies of any of the judgements referred to in the OA, but to our knowledge, the cases cited are distinguishable on facts and circumstances from that of the applicant. Moreover, although the applicant retired from service on 30.04.2011, this OA has been filed almost five years later. Though learned counsel for the applicant argued that limitation does not apply in cases of claims relating to pensionary benefits as this is a continuing cause of action, but, it appears to us that this is a stale claim since even the judgements that have been cited in support of the claim of the applicant, relate to dates much earlier than the date of superannuation of the applicant. Hence, we conclude that there is no merit in this OA and the same is dismissed in limine.
(RAJWANT SANDHU) MEMBER(A) (JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL) MEMBER(J) Dated:
ND* 1 OA No. 060/00267/2016