Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
N Munusamy vs D/O Post on 31 October, 2023
1 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
O.A Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019,
513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021
Dated Wednesday the 31s day of May Two Thousand Twenty Three
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Member (J)
OA No.228/2021
P. Kaveri
W/o. M. Perumal
No.2/407 Ramadass Street
Nesavalar Nagar Kalladiyanpettai
Medavakkam, Chennai - 600 100
(working as MTS) .... Applicant
By Advocate : Mr. R. Malaichamy
Vs.
1. Union of India
Rep. by the Secretary
Ministry of Communications & IT
Department of Posts
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg
New Delhi - 110 011.
2. The Chief Postmaster General
Tamil Nadu Circle
Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002
3. The General Manager
Postal Accounts & Finance
Tamil Nadu Circle
No.4, Ethiraj Salai, Chennai - 600 008.
4. The Assistant Chief Accounts Officer
O/o. The General Manager
Postal Accounts & Finance
Tamil Nadu Circle
No.4, Ethiraj Salai, Chennai - 600 008.
5. The Senior Accounts Officer (ADMIN)
O/o. the General Manager
Postal Accounts & Finance
Tamil Nadu Circle
No.4 Ethiraj Salai, Chennai - 600 008 .... Respondents
By Advocate : Mr. Su.Srinivasan
2 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021
OA No.846/2018
S.Palani,
S/o.Sedambaram,
A6/12. Kesavamudaliar Street,
Alappakkam,
Seenivasanagar Post,
Chennai-600 063. .... Applicant
By Advocate : Mr. R. Malaichamy
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communication & IT,
Dak Bhavan,Sansad Marg,
New Delhi - 110 001
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,Chennai - 600 002.
3. The Superintendent,
Railway Mail Service (RMS),
Chennai Sorting Division,
Chennai-600 008.
4. The Head Record Officer,
Chennai Sorting Division,
Chennai-600 008. .... Respondents
By Advocate : Mr.G.Dhamodaran
OA No.1647/2019
1. K.Gajendran (age 60),
Slo.N.Kannaiya,
No.31, 3d Street,Charles Nagar,
Thiruvottiyur,Chennai-600 019.
2.K.Sundarapandian (age 59),
Slo.M.Kuppusamy,
No.E 21C, P&T Quarters,
Tagore Circle,Anna Nagar,
Chennai-600 040.
3.B.Rameshbabu (age 53)
S/o.R.Balashunmugam,
No. 12A., Annai Velankanni Naar 1 Street,
M.M.C. Post,Chennai-600 051.
3 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021
4.M.Chandrasekaran (age 52)
S/o.N.Munusamy,
No.20, 2nd Main Road,
Jaganathan Nagar,
Arumbakkam,
Chennai-600 106.
5.M.Dhanasekaran (age 57)
Slo.K.Muthu,
No.38, Karthik Nagar,
Madambakkam -603 202.
6.S.Vijayakumar (age 58)
Slo.K.Saminathan,
No.23, Elangovadigal Street,
Nanganallur,Chennai-600 061.
7.R.Panneerselvam (age 58)
S/o.A.Rathinavelu,
Plot No.22, 2nd Street,
Radha Nagar Extn.,
Velachery,Chennai-600 042.
8.V.Gopinath (age 58)
S/o.M.D.Viswanathan,
No.22, Tholkappier Street,
M.G.R. Nagar,Chennai-600 078.
9. N.Raja Selvam (age 59)
Slo.N.Nithiyanantham,
No.19C, Veeraragavalu Nagar,
Vinayagapuram,Chennai-600 088.
10. M.Revathy (age 59)
D/o.V.Munusamy,
No.4/9, Perumal Street,
Washermenpet,Chennai-600 021.
11. B.K.Umasankar (age 57)
S/o.A.V.Kuppan,
No.6, Model Street,Kakkanji Nagar,
Pattabiram,Chennai-600 072.
12. N.Prabhu (age 57)
Slo.K.Nithyanandam,
No.17/27, Ganesapuram Main Street,
Vyasarpadi,Chennai-600 039.
13. S.Muneer Sulthana (age 55)
D/o.Syed Basha, No.26/19A,Thangal,
Chennai - 600 019.
4 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021
14. S.Venkatesan (age 57)
Slo.K.Subramani,
No. 1072, Kattaboman Street,
Bhavani Nagar,Redhills,
Chennai-600 052.
15. G.Nagarajan (age 59)
S/o.M.Ganesan,
Plot No.2, Door No.85,
P.R.V.Nagar,Guduvancherry - 603 202.
16. P.Thiyagarajan (age 58)
Slo.K.Pandari,
Plot No.5, Veeramani Street,
Periyar Nagar Extn.,
Madipakkam,Chennai-600 091.
17. K.Bharanikumar (age 58)
S/o.M.Kuppusamy,
No.28/17, M.G.R. Salai,
Nehru Nagar,Saligramam,
Chennai-600 093.
18. C.RPadmanaban (age 58)
S/o.C.J.Ramachandran,
Old No.29, Dr. Murthy Nagar
2nd Main Road,Padi, Chennai-600 050.
19. M.Navaneetham (age 60)
D/o.K.Munusamy,
K-14, P & TQuarters,
Vyasarpadi,Chennai-600 039.
20. K.Sekar (age 58)
Slo.E.Kannabiran,
No.16, Kothavalchavadi Street,
Saidapet-600 015.
21. D.Gajendran (age 55)
S/o. T.Durairaj,
No.20, Salai Vinayagar Koil Street,
Chennai-600 001.
22. S.Ravichandran (age 55)
S/o.L.Selvaraj.
No.38A/52, Kalathumettu Street,
Indira Nagar,Chengalpattu-603 002.
23. S.Tamilarasi (age 57)
D/o.S.Srinivasan,
No.19, Veeraragavalu Nagar,
Vinayagapuram,Chennai-600 088.
5 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021
24. G.Sekar (age 57)
S/o.R.Ganesan,
No.11/5, Jals Street,
Alandur,Chennai-600 016.
25. K.Vaidhyanathan (age 57)
S/o.V.Kuppusamy,
No.43B, Dharmalinga Mudali Street,
Kownamancheri,Periyakavanam,
Ponneri-601 204.
26. MD.Saleemudin (age 58)
S/o.Mohamed Muniruddin,
Old No.48, New No.18,
Kamarajar Nagar 3 Street,
Zamin Pallavaram,
Chennai-600 043.
27. V.Shankarkumar (age 60)
S/o.V.Shanımugam,
No.14/48, Nambuliar Street,
Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 001.
28. B.Ravichandran (age 60)
S/o.M.Balasundran,
No.29/2, Suburayan 4" Street,
Nammalvarpet,Chennai-600 012.
29. T.S.Vedagiri (age 57)
Slo.T.M.Subramaniam,
No. 18, Tirupur Kumaran Street,
Vyasarpadi,Chennai-600 039.
30. MD,Gouse Mohideen (age 53)
S/o.R.Abdul Rahim,
No.10/33, Thillai Nayagam 3" Street,
Sembiam, Chennai-600 011.
31. N.Amsa (age 62),
D/o. Sanker,
No. 14A,7 Main Road,
Anna Nagar,Pammal,
Chennai - 600 075.
32. Sulthana Mohideen,
Slo. Abdul Jaffer,
No. 3/3 Thulugana Street,
Washermenpet,Chennai - 600 021.
33. C.Mani (age 62),
S/o. Chinnamunusamy,
No.147, Kasthuribai Colony,
Kannigapuram,Chennai - 600 012.
6 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021
34. K.Chellappa (age 62),
S/o. K Krishnasamny,
No.38, Jagajeevanram Street,
Thiruvallur Nagar,
Pammal,Chennai 600 075.
35. M.Vijayakumar (age 62),
Slo. C. Muthukrishnan,
No. 43/3, Sridevikarumariamman Street,
Chennai
36. D.Gopal (age 62),
Slo. T.Durairaj,
No.31/74 III Main road,
MMDA Mathur,Chennai - 600 068.
37. D.Ethurajan (age 62),
Slo. Dhamodharan,
Plot. No. 74, 2nd Main Road,
Anna Nagar,
Pammal, Chennai - 600 075. .... Respondents
By Advocate : Mr.M.Kishore Kumar
OA No.513/2020
C.Devaraj,
S/o. T.S.Chockalingam,
No.2/3, 2 Street,
Bakthavachalam Nagar,
Nanganallur South,
Chennai-600 061. .... Applicant
By Advocate : M/s.R.Malaichamy
Vs.
1. Union of India
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications & IT,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi - 110 011.
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
3. The General Manager,
Postal Accounts & Finance,
Tamil Nadu Circle,No.4, Ethiraj Salai,
Chennai-600 008.
7 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021
4. The Senior Accounts Officer (Pension),
O/o. the General Manager,
Postal Accounts & Finance,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
No.4, Ethiraj Salai,
Chennai-600 008.
5. The Senior Accounts Officer (ADMN),
Olo. the General Manager,
Postal Accounts & Finance,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
No.4, Ethiraj Salai,
Chennai-600 008. .... Respondents
By Advocate : Mr.R.S.Krishnaswamy
OA No.208/2021
Smt. Kotteshwariamma,
W/o. Subbarao,
No.J 22, P& TQuarters,
Vyasar Nagar,
Chennai - 600 039. .... Applicant
By Advocate : M/s.R.Malaichamy
Vs.
1. Union of India
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications & IT,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi - 110 011.
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
3. The General Manager,
Postal Accounts & Finance,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
No.4, Ethiraj Salai,
Chennai-600 008.
4. The Assistant Chief Accounts Officer,
O/o. the General Manager,
Postal Accounts & Finance,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
No.4, Ethiraj Salai,
Chennai-600 008. .... Respondents
By Advocate : Mr.M.Kishore Kumar
8 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021
OA No.310/2021
N.Munusamy,
S/o.S.Neelakandan,
No.27/13-A, 11" Street,
Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600 083. .... Applicant
By Advocate : M/s.R.Malaichamy
Vs.
1. Union of India
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications & IT,
Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110 011.
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
3. The General Manager,
Postal Accounts & Finance,
Tamil Nadu Circle, No.4, Ethiraj Salai,
Chennai-600 008.
4. The Assistant Chief Accounts Officer,
Olo. the General Manager,
Postal Accounts & Finance,
Tamil Nadu Circle, No.4, Ethiraj Salai,
Chennai-600 008. .... Respondents
By Advocate : Mr.K.Kannan
OA No.312/2021
V.Balamurugan,
S/o. M.Vajravel,
No.C-8,P&TQuarters, Dr.Subburayan Nagar,
Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018. .... Applicant
By Advocate : M/s.R.Malaichamy
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications & IT,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi - 110 011.
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai,Chennai - 600 002.
9 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021
3. The General Manager,
Postal Accounts & Finance,
Tamil Nadu Circle, No.4, Ethiraj Salai,
Chennai-600 008.
4. The Assistant Chief Accounts Officer,
Olo. the General Manager,
Postal Accounts & Finance,
Tamil Nadu Circle,No.4, Ethiraj Salai,
Chennai-600 008. .... Respondents
By Advocate : Mr.R.S.Krishnaswamy
OA No.23/2021
G.Ellappan,
S/o. K.Gopal,
No.24/25, Navalar Street,
Rani Annanagar, Arumbakkam,
Chennai - 600 106 .... Applicant
By Advocate : M/s.R.Malaichamy
Vs.
1. Union of India
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications & IT,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi - 110 011.
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
3. The General Manager,
Postal Accounts & Finance,
Tamil Nadu Circle, No.4, Ethiraj Salai,
Chennai-600 008.
4. The Senior Accounts Officer (Pension),
Olo. the General Manager,
Postal Accounts & Finance,
Tamil Nadu Circle, No.4, Ethiraj Salai,
Chennai-600 008.
3. The Senior Accounts Officer (ADMN),
O/o. the General Manager,
Postal Accounts & Finance,
Tamil Nadu Circle,No.4, Ethiraj Salai,
Chennai-600 008. .... Respondents
By Advocate : Mr.M.Kishore Kumar
10 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member (J) Since the issue involved in all the OAs and facts of the cases are same, all the OAs are taken together for consideration and allowed by this Common Order.
2. By this Original Applications the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:
OA 228/2021
(i) to call for the records of the 5th Respondent pertaining to her Order made in No.21 / Legal Cell / OA 1822 / 2016 /19-20 dt.27.06.2019 and the Order of 4th Respondent pertaining to her Order which is made in No.732/Pen I/GV/CPGRAMS/ dt.24.07.2019 and set aside the same, consequent to;
(ii) direct the Respondents to count half of the casual service rendered by the Applicant from 01.04.1993 to 21.07.2011 and grant all service benefits by treating the service of the Applicant under old pension scheme; and further
(iii) direct the 3rd Respondent to refund the amount of contribution being recovered under new pension scheme from her pay;
OA 846/2018
(i)to call for the records of the 3rd Respondent pertaining to his order made in Memo No B-2/OA 94/2015 dated 20.1.2017 and set aside the same, consequent to;
(ii) direct the Respondents to count 50% of service rendered by the Applicant in the capacity of casual labourer from 09.11.1982 to 31.12.2000 and 100% of service rendered in the capacity of temporary status from 01.01.2001 to 24.02.2013 along with the regular service rendered from 25.02.2013 to 31.10.2014 for the purpose of grant of terminal benefits and pension under old pension scheme and further to
(iii) direct the grant arrears of pension and terminal benefits to the applicant and also direct to grant gratuity amount to the applicant as per the judgment in Civil Appeal No.1254/2018 of the Hon. Supreme Court of India 11 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021 OA 1647/2019
(i) To call for the records of the 4th respondent pertaining to his order which is made in memo No.INV/30-1/CAT CASE/2019 Dlgs dated 31.07.2019 and set aside the same, consequent to;
(ii) Direct the respondents to count the casual service rendered by the applicants as qualifying service along with regular service for grant of pension and other retirement service benefits OA 513/2020
(i) to call for the records of the 5th Respondent pertaining to her Order made in No.22 / Legal Cell / OA 1798 / 2016 /19-20 dt.27.06.2019 and the Order of 4th Respondent pertaining to her Order which is made in No.731/Pen I/GV/CPGRAMS/ dt.24.07.2019 and set aside the same, consequent to;
(ii) direct the Respondents to count half of the casual service rendered by the Applicant from 19.10.1993 to 08.08.2011 and grant all service benefits by treating the service of the Applicant under old pension scheme; and further
(iii) direct the 3rd Respondent to refund the amount of contribution being recovered under new pension scheme from his pay OA 208/2021
(i) to call for the records of the 4th Respondent pertaining to his Order made in No.16/Legal Cell/OA 1821/2016/19-20 dt. 13.06.2019/17.06.2019 and set aside the same, consequent to;
(ii) direct the Respondents to count half of the casual service rendered by the Applicant from 18.01.1995 to 08.08.2011 and grant all service benefits by treating the service of the Applicant under old pension scheme; and further
(iii) direct the 3rd Respondent to refund the amount of contribution being recovered under new pension scheme from her pay OA 310/2021
(i) to call for the records of the 4th Respondent pertaining to his Order made in No.17/Legal Cell/OA 1797/2016/19-20 dt. 17.06.2019 and set aside the same, consequent to;
(ii) direct the Respondents to count half of the casual service rendered by the Applicant from 07.10.1993 to 08.08.2011 and grant all service benefits by treating the service of the Applicant under old pension scheme; and further 12 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021
(iii) direct the 3rd Respondent to refund the amount of contribution being recovered under new pension scheme from his pay OA 312/2021
(i) to call for the records of the 4th Respondent pertaining to his Order made in No.06/Legal Cell/OA 1745/2016/19-20 dt. 03.05.2019 and set aside the same, consequent to;
(ii) direct the Respondents to count half of the casual service rendered by the Applicant from 01.01.1996 to 21.07.2011 and grant all service benefits by treating the service of the Applicant under old pension scheme; and further
(iii) direct the 3rd Respondent to refund the amount of contribution being recovered under new pension scheme from his pay OA 23/2021
(i) to call for the records of the 5th Respondent pertaining to her Order made in No.20/Legal Cell/OA 1822/2016/19-20 dt. 27.06.2019 and the order of the 4th respondent pertaining to her order which is made in No.730/Pen I/GV/CPGRAMS dated 24.07.2019 and set aside the same, consequent to;
(ii) direct the Respondents to count half of the casual service rendered by the Applicant from 07.04.1995 to 08.08.2011 and grant all service benefits by treating the service of the Applicant under old pension scheme; and further
(iii) direct the 3rd Respondent to refund the amount of contribution being recovered under new pension scheme from his pay
3. Brief facts of OA No.228 of 2021 are as under:
The Applicant was initially appointed as a casual labourer on 01.04.1993 and worked as a casual labourer on part time and full time till the date of absorption appointed on a regular basis on 21.07.2011. The Applicant has also been granted payment of HRA 01.01.1996 to 17.12.2008 and CCA for the period from 01.01.1996 to 31.08.2008. In the earlier round of litigation, the Applicant approached this Tribunal by filing OA No.419 of 2010 and sought for absorption for regularisation. This Tribunal has 13 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021 disposed of the OA by Order dated 19.04.2010 with a direction to the Respondents to consider the case of the Applicant for selection to Group 'D' services. The Applicant further contended that the applicant has also been granted HRA and CCA by the Respondents after the directions of this Tribunal dated 17.09.2010. However, the Applicant's services have been regularised only in the year 2011 as a new appointment and she was declined the benefit of casual services rendered prior to the absorption on regular post. Since the Applicant is working in the office of the Respondents from 1993 continuously, she is entitled to the benefits under the old pension scheme as her absorption and appointment on regular basis has been followed by her continuous long dedicated services as a casual labourer.
Since the Respondents rejected her request, being aggrieved, the Applicant has filed the present application and prayed for the aforesaid relief. 3.1 Brief facts of OA No.846 of 2018 are as under:
The Applicant was initially appointed as an Outsider on 09.11.1982 and worked as a casual labourer and he was granted temporary status w.e.f 01.01.2001, vide order dated 07.02.2001 and thereafter appointed on a regular basis on 25.02.2013 and he retired from service on superannuation on 31.10.2014. Since he was entitled to count 50% of service rendered in the capacity of casual labourer from 09.11.1982 to 31.12.2000 and 100% of service rendered in the capacity of temporary status from 01.01.2001 to 24.02.2013 along with regular service from 25.02.2013 to 31.10.2014 for the purpose of grant of terminal benefits and pension under the old pension scheme, he filed OA 94/2015 and the same was disposed of on 31.03.2017 with direction to the respondents to consider his representation but the same was rejected. Hence this OA.
3.2 Brief facts of OA No.1647 of 2019 are as under:
14 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021 The Applicants 1 to 37 were initially appointed as a casual labourers in the respondent department on 02.04.1981, 31.03.1981, 11.05.1981, 27.05.1981, 18.08.1983, 06.02.1981, 27.03.1981, 27.03.1981, 27.03.1981, 21.07.1980, 02.08.1982, 19.07.1980, 22.07.1980, 05.09.1983, 18.05.1980, 20.07.1979, 16.07.1979, 09.02.1981, 09.02.1981, 12.02.1984, 21.09.1979, 07.09.1981, 18.08.1983, 09.06.1981, 22.07.1980, 10.08.1983, 18.08.1993, 19.07.1980, 1981, 30.07.1981, 28.08.1995, 10.10.1980, 08.02.1979, 16.07.1979, 14.09.1979, 27.03.1981, 21.07.1979 & 1978 respectively and worked as such continuously. The Applicants have also granted payment of HRA and CCA during the service rendered as casual labourers. While the applicants 22 to 33 were granted temporary status in Group D cadre, the other applicants were not given temporary status but all the applicants were appointed as Postman/MTS/Group D in later years. In the earlier round of litigation, the Applicants 1 to 30 approached this Tribunal and filed OA No.359 of 2019 and sought for regularisation. This Tribunal has disposed of the OA by Order dated 20.03.2019 with a direction to the Respondents to consider the case of the Applicants for selection to Group 'D' services but the same was rejected by the respondents by order dated 31.07.2019. Hence this OA.
3.3 Brief facts of OA No.513 of 2020 are as under:
The Applicant was initially appointed as a casual labourer in the respondent department on 19.10.1993 and worked as such continuously till 08.08.2011. The Applicant has also granted payment of HRA for the period from 01.01.1996 to 17.12.2008 and CCA for the period from 01.01.1996 to 31.08.2008 during the service rendered as casual labourer. In the earlier round of litigation, the Applicant approached this Tribunal and filed OA No.423 of 2010 and sought for absorption/regularisation. This Tribunal has 15 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021 disposed of the OA by Order dated 19.04.2010 against which WP 8782 to 8787/2011 were filed and the same were dismissed by order dated 22.06.2011 and thereafter the applicant was appointed as MTS by order dated 09.08.2011. The applicant again filed OA 1798/2016 challenging the order passed by the respondents rejecting the applicant's request to bring his service under the Old Pension Scheme and the same was disposed of by order dated 04.04.2019 holding that the applicant was a full time casual labourer. Since the respondents have not challenged the said order, the same attained finality but the respondents have again rejected the applicant's claim stating that he was a part time casual labour. Hence this OA.
3.4 Brief facts of OA No.208 of 2021 are as under:
The Applicant was initially appointed as a casual labourer(Sweeper) in the respondent department on 18.01.1995 and worked as such continuously till 08.08.2011. The Applicant has also granted payment of HRA for the period from 01.01.1996 to 17.12.2008 & and CCA for the period from 01.01.1996 to 31.08.2008 during the service rendered as casual labourer. In the earlier round of litigation, the Applicant approached this Tribunal and filed OA No.418 of 2010 and sought for absorption/regularisation. This Tribunal has disposed of the OA by Order dated 19.04.2010 against which WP 8782 to 8787/2011 were filed and the same were dismissed by order dated 22.06.2011 and thereafter the applicant was appointed as MTS by order dated 09.08.2011. The applicant again filed OA 1821/2016 challenging the order passed by the respondents rejecting the applicant's request to bring her service under the Old Pension Scheme and the same was disposed of by order dated 04.04.2019 holding that the applicant was a full time casual labourer. Since the respondents have not challenged the said order, the 16 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021 same attained finality but the respondents have again rejected the applicant's claim stating that she was a part time casual labour. Hence this OA.
3.5 Brief facts of OA No.310 of 2021 are as under:
The Applicant is working as a Junior Accountant in the office of the 3 rd respondent. He was initially appointed as a casual labourer in the respondent department on 07.10.1993 and worked as such continuously till 08.08.2011. The Applicant has also granted payment of HRA for the period from 01.01.1996 to 17.12.2008 and CCA for the period from 01.01.1996 to 31.08.2008 during the service rendered as casual labourer. In the earlier round of litigation, the Applicant approached this Tribunal and filed OA No.422 of 2010 and sought for absorption/regularisation. This Tribunal has disposed of the OA by Order dated 19.04.2010 against which WP 8782 to 8787/2011 were filed and the same were dismissed by order dated 22.06.2011 and thereafter the applicant was appointed as MTS by order dated 09.08.2011. The applicant again filed OA 1797/2016 challenging the order passed by the respondents rejecting the applicant's request to bring his service under the Old Pension Scheme and the same was disposed of by order dated 04.04.2019 holding that the applicant was a full time casual labourer. Since the respondents have not challenged the said order, the same attained finality but the respondents have again rejected the applicant's claim stating that he was a part time casual labour. Hence this OA.
3.6 Brief facts of OA No.312 of 2021 are as under:
The Applicant is working as a Junior Accountant in the office of the 3 rd respondent. He was initially appointed as a casual labourer in the respondent department on 01.01.1996 and worked as such continuously till 21.07.2011. 17 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021 The Applicant has also granted payment of HRA for the period from 01.01.1996 to 17.12.2008 and CCA for the period from 01.01.1996 to 31.08.2008 during the service rendered as casual labourer. In the earlier round of litigation, the Applicant approached this Tribunal and filed OA No.421 of 2010 and sought for absorption/regularisation. This Tribunal has disposed of the OA by Order dated 19.04.2010 against which WP 8782 to 8787/2011 were filed and the same were dismissed by order dated 22.06.2011 and thereafter the applicant was appointed as MTS by order dated 22.07.2011. The applicant again filed OA 1745/2016 challenging the order passed by the respondents rejecting the applicant's request to bring his service under the Old Pension Scheme and the same was disposed of by order dated 04.04.2019 holding that the applicant was a full time casual labourer. Since the respondents have not challenged the said order, the same attained finality but the respondents have again rejected the applicant's claim stating that he was a part time casual labour. Hence this OA.
3.7 Brief facts of OA No.23 of 2021 are as under:
The Applicant is working as a Senior Accountant in the office of the 3 rd respondent. He was initially appointed as a Sweeper cum Water Carrier in the respondent department on 01.02.1995 and worked as such continuously till 30.11.1995. Thereafter he joined the 3 rd respondent office as a casual labourer ib 01.12.1995 and worked as such continuously till 08.08.2011. The Applicant has also granted payment of HRA for the period from 01.01.1996 to 17.12.2008 and CCA for the period from 01.01.1996 to 31.08.2008 during the service rendered as casual labourer. In the earlier round of litigation, the Applicant approached this Tribunal and filed OA No.420 of 2010 and sought for absorption/regularisation. This Tribunal has 18 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021 disposed of the OA by Order dated 19.04.2010 against which WP 8782 to 8787/2011 were filed and the same were dismissed by order dated 22.06.2011 and thereafter the applicant was appointed as MTS by order dated 22.07.2011. The applicant again filed OA 1822/2016 challenging the order passed by the respondents rejecting the applicant's request to bring his service under the Old Pension Scheme and the same was disposed of by order dated 04.04.2019 holding that the applicant was a full time casual labourer. Since the respondents have not challenged the said order, the same attained finality but the respondents have again rejected the applicant's claim stating that he was a part time casual labour. Hence this OA.
4. After notice, the Respondents have filed their reply and oppose the relief on the ground of that Applicants came to be appointed on a regular basis only after 01.01.2004 and hence covered under the new pension scheme. Moreover, the Applicants are not entitled for the relief on the ground that Applicants services have been taken up by the Respondents as part time casual labourers and they have not been appointed through the Employment Exchange. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the OA.
5. To refute the said averments/objections of the Respondents made in the counter, the Applicants have filed rejoinder and reiterated the grounds raised in the OA and prayed for the aforesaid relief.
6. The Respondents also filed additional reply to the rejoinder of the Applicant and reiterated their stand taken in the reply to refute the averments made in the rejoinder by the Applicant.
7. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Applicant Mr. R. Malaichamy, and the Learned Counsel for the Respondents Mr.Su.Srinivasan, 19 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021 Mr.G.Dhamodaran, Mr.M.Kishore Kumar, Mr. R.S. Krishnaswamy, Mr.K.Kannan and perused the relevant records.
8. Applicants have filed the OAs with the prayer to set aside the impugned orders and to direct the Respondents to count ½ (half) of the casual services rendered by the Applicants from their initial appointment as casual labourers till the date of regular appointment and 100% of the temporary status services and grant all service benefits by treating the services of the Applicants under old pension scheme with further direction to the Respondents to refund the amount of contribution being recovered under new pension scheme from their pay.
9. It is to be noted that all these Applicants who were appointed initially as casual labourers in the office of the Respondent No.3 and worked for more than 10(ten) years continuously. Even after utilizing their services on casual basis, their services have not been regularised though the sanctioned vacancies in Group-D cadre were available in the office of the Respondent No.3 and as per the amended recruitment rules of Group 'D'. The Applicants were/are entitled for appointment and absorption in that post. In spite of the recommendation of the Respondent No.3 for absorption of the Applicants, the Respondents 1 &2 have rejected the recommendation made by the Respondent No.3 on the ground that the Applicants have not been recruited through Employment Exchange. Therefore, the Applicants made several representations praying for temporary status so as to make them absorb in the Department. Since no order has been passed on the Applicants representation, therefore, some of the Applicants filed OA No.418 to 423 of 2010 before this Tribunal relying upon the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.438 of 2008 wherein it has been observed that to fill up the vacancies of unskilled like Sweeper, the provisions of Employment Exchange Act, 1959 20 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021 will not apply and directed the Respondents to consider the case of the Applicants therein for selection for Group 'D' services for future vacancies.
10. It is to be noted that, considering the facts and merits in the matter, this Tribunal by this Order dated 19.04.2010 has directed the Respondents to treat the OAs as representations of the Applicants and decide the same in the light of the judgment in OA No.438 of 2008 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. It is also to be noted that, as per the directions of this Tribunal issued in MA/545/2010 in OA No.1145 of 2010 by its order dated 17.09.2010, directing the Respondents to extend the benefit of orders passed in the earlier OAs by granting HRA & CCA to the present Applicants too. Accordingly, by order dated 29.11.2010, sanction has been issued and HRA for the period from 01.01.1996 to 17.12.2008 and CCA for the period 01.01.1996 to 31.08.2008 has been granted to the Applicants.
11. It is also to be noted that, against the directions of this Tribunal issued in the OA No.418 to 423 of 2010, the Respondents has preferred Writ Petition Nos.8782 to 8787 of 2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and challenge the order passed by this Tribunal dated 19.04.2010. Upon hearing, vide its order dated 22.06.2011, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has observed thus:
"6. It is submitted by the Learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that DCP was constituted to verify the eligibility of the Respondents for regularisation and accordingly, they found out of six Respondents/Applicants two persons are eligible i.e., S. Kavarianmal, Applicant in O.A.No.419/ 2010 and V. Balamurugan, Applicant in O.A.No.423/2010. If that is the case of the Petitioners, we are of the considered opinion that nothing survives in keeping these writ petitions pending adjudication. If the Applicants/Respondents are not selected for any reason, it is for them work out their remedy before the appropriate Forum.
Accordingly, the Writ Petitions filed by the Respondents are dismissed. 21 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021
12. It is to be noted that after the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has upheld order passed by this Tribunal, the Respondents by Order dated 22.07.2011 appointed some Applicants as a Multi Task Staff (MTS) against the vacant post under 25% Selection-cum-Seniority Quota governing the services of the Applicants under new pension scheme introduced on 01.01.2004 and Applicant has to complete the probation period of two years for confirmation.
13. It is also to be noted that vide Order dated 29.06.2016, the Respondent No.3, has also sanctioned HRA for the period from 01.09.2008 to 17.12.2018 to the Applicants. It is to be noted that though the Applicants have submitted requests to count the services rendered from the initial date of their appointment as mentioned in their OAs till their regular appointment made in the year 2011, the same had not been counted for the purpose of computing qualifying service under the CCS Pension Rules though the Applicants are entitled for the benefit of said casual services under the Rules of CCS Pension Rules since 1989 onwards accordingly. Since there is no reply from the Respondents Authorities, the Applicants have approached this Tribunal by filing OAs OA No.94/2015, 1745/2016, 1797/2016, 1798/2016, 1820/2016, 1821/2016 & 1822/2016. Upon hearing, by its Orders dated 31.03.2017, 22.01.2019 and 04.04.2019, this Tribunal has directed the Respondents to consider the claim of the Applicant and pass the reasoned Order. Against the directions of this Tribunal, the Respondents have considered the request of the Applicants for counting of 50% of past service and rejected stating that since the Applicant's came to be appointed as per the revised Recruitment Rules in the year 2011 and will be covered under the New Pension Scheme after 01.01.2004 and communicated to the Applicants on 24.07.2019.
22 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021
14. It is not in a dispute that all the Applicants in the above OAs worked as casual labourers in the office of the Respondents since 1989 till their absorption on regular basis. Admittedly, the Respondents have absorbed the Applicants against the vacant post under 25% Selection cum Seniority Quota as MTS.
15. It is to be noted that, all the Applicants, who have joined the Department though they have been shown as part time casual labourers since 1989, 1993 and 1995 respectively, however, when their cases have been taken up for conferment of temporary status, the proposal has been made by the Respondent No.3 wherein it has specifically recorded that the office of the Respondent was having shortage of 24 Group D staff for long time and 17 Group D staff as on 01.01.2004 and the work was being managed by with part time Mazdoors ranging from 4 to 7 hours on the analogy of ED being employed on the operative side. Later on, on account of the further acute shortage, they were brought on to regular duty hours of Group D i.e., on full time basis for 8 hours day from 01.04.2001 onwards referred earlier, noting at 491/N. Even now, a shortage of 11 Group D staff exists after abolition of Group D post in the year.
16. It is to be noted that the said proposal for conferment of temporary status forwarded by the Respondent No.3 in the name of the Applicants & other full time casual employees has been turned down by the Respondent No.1 & 2 on the ground that they have not been appointed through employment exchange.
17. While arguing the matter, the Learned Counsel for the Applicants in support of their claim has relied upon the Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No.2481 of 2002 and other connected Writ Petitions wherein the Respondents/Department of Posts and Ors have 23 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021 challenged the Order passed by this Tribunal in respect of grant of HRA and CCA as the Respondents/Department of Posts want to withdraw the said benefits of HRA & CCA. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras vide its Order dated 08.03.2007 upheld the decisions of this Tribunal. Without proper amendment to the rules, the Respondents/Department of Post who are Petitioner therein are not entitled to withdraw the payment of HRA and CCA.
18. The Learned Counsel for the Applicants has also placed reliance upon the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No.8205 of 2011 in the matter of M. Gopal Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors by its Order dated 19.04.2011 the Hon'ble High Court allowed the Writ Petition with a direction to the State of Tamil Nadu to count 50% of the service of the Petitioner herein from the initial date of appointment as a casual labourer till the date of his absorption along with entire service from the date of absorption till his superannuation as pensionable service as he is having more than ten years of pensionable service. The said Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras is upheld in Writ Appeal No.27 & 28 of 2012 by the Division Bench of High Court of Madras by their Order dated 13.02.2012 and after the dismissal of the SLP filed before the Supreme Court of India, the said Order has attained finalities.
19. The Learned Counsel for the Applicants has also placed his reliance upon Order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the Punjab - Hariyana High Court at Chandigarh in CWP No.1432 of 2012 in the matter of Som Nagth & Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Ors and with other connected civil revision Petition considered the similar issue in respect daily wage service rendered by the employees prior to coming into force new scheme on 01.01.2004. Though they were absorbed and appointed after the 01.01.2004 and directed the State Government to count their services of casual labourers along with 24 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021 regular services for grant of pension under the old pension scheme and the said Order has been attained finality, as the Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by their Order dated 22.07.2013. The Learned Counsel for the Applicants has also relied upon the Order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3938 of 2017 along with other connected civil appeals in the matter of Union of India and Ors vs. Rakesh Kumar and Ors wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that casual labourer is entitled to reckon 50% of the casual/temporary service put on before obtaining temporary status, till he is regularised on regular/temporary post for purposes of calculation of pension. Further, held that, the casual workers appointed against any post either substantively or in officiating or in temporary capacity, entitled to reckon entire period from the date of taking charge of such post.
20. The Learned Counsel for the Applicants has also relied upon the Order dated 21.11.2017 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No.33880 of 2014 in the matter of Chidambarnathan vs. The Secretary for Differently Abled Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu and Other had pointed out that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has considered the matters in similar issue for counting of service of 50% service rendered on temporary basis along with regular service for grant of pension and other benefits.
21. The Learned Counsel for the Applicants has also relied upon the Order dated 10.04.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No.8433 of 2018 in the matter of Siv Kumar N.B vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors, wherein the similar issue has been considered in respect of services rendered on causal/temporary basis and the said service has been 25 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021 considered for the absorption after 01.01.2004 by giving appointment to the casual/temporary employee on regular basis. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras directed to count the 50% of the services rendered on temporary basis along with regular service for grant of pension under the old scheme.
22. The Learned Counsel for the Applicants has also relied upon the Order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WA No.2163 of 2022 in the matter of The State of Tamil Nadu through its Secretary, Department of School Education & Ors vs. S. Madhu & Anr , after referring the judgment of the full bench of High Court, rejected the submissions of the Government on the point of delayed approach of the employee to the Court for grant of similar benefit in respect of pension and pensionary benefit. In respect of 50% of the service rendered by the Applicants therein as part time before the absorption and appointment on regular post.
23. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant has also relied upon the mandate sheet and the proposal initiated by the Respondents Office for conferment temporary status as well as regularisation in the matter of Applicants and other casual employees to show that though the Respondents are denying the benefit against the services rendered by the Applicants and other casual employees on full time basis on the ground of the Applicants and other causal employees are only part time employees. However, it is clear from the said proposal of the Respondents that the Respondents have extracted the work from the Applicants on the full time basis and keeping sanctioned vacancies unfilled.
24. The Learned Counsel for the Applicants has also placed the reliance upon the rules of casual leave and pointed out that since the Applicants were working full time against the Group 'D' post and therefore they have been 26 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021 granted with the benefit of CCA. Hence, the Learned Counsel for the Applicants has submitted that the Applicants are entitled for the relief prayed in OA.
25. On the other hand, the Learned Counsels for the Respondents have vehemently opposed the relief prayed by the Applicants on the ground that Applicants were appointed as MTS in the year 2011 as per the recommendation of the DPC and their appointments are after 01.01.2004 are covered under the new pension scheme. Learned Counsels for the Respondents have further argued that, though the Applicants are ineligible for the absorption, however, against the directions of this Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, the Respondents have appointed them on regular basis. Further, they have been granted HRA & CCA against the direction of this Tribunal though they are not entitled.
26. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents in their support of arguments placed reliance upon the Order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the Coordinated Bench, Ernakulam in OA No.15 of 2019 in the matter of Y. Babu vs. Union of India, Department of Post & Ors and argued that the similar issue has been considered by the Coordinated Bench in respect of counting of 50% service rendered on casual/temporary basis upon absorption, the employees are not entitled to get benefit of their such casual services and rejected the relief of the employee who was part time contingent staff in the postal department.
27. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents have relied upon the Order dated 10.08.2022 passed by the High Court of Kerala in OP (CAT) No.142 of 2019 in the matter of Surenderan Nairs & Ors vs. Union of India, Department of Post & Ors, wherein issue in respect of service rendered by the GDS to count along with regular service for the pension has been 27 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021 considered in detail and the Hon'ble High Court has declined to grant in relief. However, directed the Respondents to consider the case of the persons like the Petitioner therein based on the liberty reserved to the litigants by the Supreme Court of India in Union of India & Ors vs. Gandiba Behera - [2019 SCC Online SC 1444] on a representation being preferred by the Petitioner therein.
28. After hearing the rival submissions of the Counsels, to decide the issue, it is necessary to extract the Rule 14 (2) Government of India's decision in CCS Pension Rule 1972 as under
"Counting half of the service paid from contingencies with regular service. - Under Article 368 of the CSRs (Rule 14), periods of service paid from contingencies do not count as qualifying service for pension. In some cases, employees paid from contingencies are employed in types of work requiring services of whole-time workers and are paid on monthly rates of pay or daily rates computed and paid on monthly basis and on being found fit brought on to regular establishment. The question whether in such cases service paid from contingencies should be allowed to count for pension and if so, to what extent has been considered in the National Council and in pursuance of the recommendation of the Council, it has been decided that half the service paid from contingencies will be allowed to count towards pension at the tune of absorption in regular employment subject to the following conditions, viz
(a) Service paid from contingencies should have been in a job involving whole-time employment (and not part-time for a portion of the day)
(b) Service paid from contingencies should be in a type of work or job for which regular posts could have been sanctioned, e.g., malis chowkidars, khalasis, etc.
(c) The service should have been one for which the payment is made either on monthly or daily rates computed and paid on a monthly basis and which though not analogous to the regular scale of pay should bear some relation in the matter of pay to those being paid for similar jobs being performed by staffs in regular establishments.
(d) The service paid from contingencies should have been continuous and followed by absorption in regular employment without a break
(e) Subject to the above conditions being fulfilled, the weightage for past service paid from contingencies will be limited to the period after 1st January, 1961, for which authentic records of service may be available.
28 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021 It has been decided that half the service paid from contingencies will be allowed to be counted the purpose of terminal gratuity as admissible under the CCS (TS) Rules, 1965, where the staff paid from contingencies allowed to be counted for CCS (TS) Rules, 1965, where the staff paid from contingencies is subsequently appointed on regular basis. The benefit will be subject to the conditions laid down in OM, dated the 14th May, 1968, above".
29. It is to be noted that as admitted by the Respondents in their reply, the Applicants were engaged as a casual labourers from the years 1993, 1982, 1981, 1983, 1980, 1979, 1995, 1978, 1996 as part time casual labourers and from 2001 to 2011 their services has been utilised as a full time casual labourers. It is also not in a dispute for the said services, the Applicants have been paid from the contingencies fund and accordingly the Applicants are in continuous service and therefore they have been absorbed and appointed on regular basis in the year 2011 against the 25% vacancies reserved for it.
30. It is to be noted that Government of India's decision under Rule 14(2) that half of service paid from the contingencies will be allowed to be counted for the purpose of terminal benefits as admissible under the CCS (TS) Rules 1965 where staff paid from the contingencies is subsequently appointed on a regular basis. Admittedly, the Applicants have been paid from the contingencies for their services on casual basis and they have been shown as a part time casual labourer for some period. Further, the Respondents have extracted the work from the Applicants and other employees on full time basis and the same has been recorded by the Respondent No.3 in his proposal for conferment of temporary status and appointment on regular basis. It is to be noted that the Respondents have extracted the services of the Applicants to fulfil the object of the department to serve the public at large.
29 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021
31. It is to be noted that, though it was the absolute need of the Respondents Department to utilise the services of the Applicants who are full time casual labourers and approved candidates for Group 'D' services and the Applicants who are fulfilling the criteria for conferment of temporary status as they have rendered one year continuous service on full time basis and nearly three years of service on full time basis, still the Respondents have declined to grant conferment of temporary status to the Applicants and other causal employees after utilising their services continuously for full time.
32. It is to be noted that in the matter of counting of casual service rendered as a part time as well as full time, this Tribunal in the matter of Natarajan in OA No.1831/2014 dated 28.04.2023 has considered the issue in depth and relying upon the various orders passed by the Hon.Supreme Court, Hon.High court and Tribunal and specifically the order passed by the Hon.High court of Madras in WP No.16733/2009 & Batch dated 19.07.2011 and allowed the OA.
33. It is to be noted that the Applicants were working on full time basis from 2001. Further, they have been absorbed in the service and appointed on regular basis in the year 2011, i.e., after the direction of this Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court of Madras. It is be noted that, while dealing into similar issues, the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad recently in April 2023 in the matter of Ranveer Singh and 23 Ors vs. Jal Sansthan Jhansi has held that the daily wage workers who were already working and whose services have been regularised after the implementation of the new pension scheme will also be entitled to get old pension linking their earlier service with regular service, considering the services of the daily wages workers as 30 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021 qualifying services and directed the Respondents Department to grant them pension and other retirement benefits.
34. It is to be noted that admittedly all the Applicants are working in the organisations since 1989, 1993 and 1995 respectively and they are in continuous service though the Applicants were appointed initially as a part time labourers and subsequently appointed as a full time labourers from 2001 till their absorption on regular basis according to their seniority against 25% quota reserved and as recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Even though the Applicants have been appointed in the year 2011 on regular basis, as per the Government of India's decision under Rule 14(2) the Applicants are entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the OAs.
35. In view of the above, the judgements relied upon by the Applicants are supporting the Applicants' claim. On the contrary, the judgment relied upon by the Respondents are in respect of GDS and are not applicable to the case of the Applicants herein.
36. In the circumstances, in light of the observations of the various High Courts as recorded above, the Applicants are also entitled for the relief prayed for in OAs and the impugned orders passed by the Respondents are contrary to the rule position ie., Government of India's decision and Rule 14(2). Hence, I hereby quash and set aside the impugned Orders in (1) OA No.228/2021 dated 27.06.2019 & 24.07.2019 (2) OA No.846/2018 dated 20.11.2017 (3) OA No. 1647/2019 dated 31.07.2019 (4) OA No.513/2020 dated 27.06.2019 & 24.07.2019 (5) OA No.208/2021 dated 13.06.2019/ 17.06.2019 (6) OA No.310/2021 dated 17.06.2019 (7) OA No.312/2021 dated 03.05.2019 (8) OA No.23/2021 dated 27.06.2019 & 24.07.2019 passed by the Respondents. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to count 50% of the services rendered by the Applicant in OA No. 228 of 2021 31 OA Nos. 228/2021, 846/2018, 1647/2019, 513/2020, 208,310,312 & 23/2021 from 01.04.1993 to 21.07.2011, to count 50% of service rendered by the Applicant in OA 846/2018 in the capacity of casual labourer from 09.11.1982 to 31.12.2000 and 100% of service rendered in the capacity of temporary status from 01.01.2001 to 24.02.2013 along with the regular service rendered from 25.02.2013 to 31.10.2014, to count 50% of the casual service rendered by the applicants in OA 1647/2019 as qualifying service and 100% of service rendered by the applicants 22 to 30 in the capacity of temporary status, to count half of the casual service rendered by the Applicant in OA 513/2020 from 19.10.1993 to 08.08.2011, to count half of the casual service rendered by the Applicant in OA 208/2021 from 18.01.1995 to 08.08.2011, to count half of the casual service rendered by the Applicant in OA 310/2021 from 07.10.1993 to 08.08.2011, to count half of the casual service rendered by the Applicant in OA 312/2021 from 01.01.1996 to 21.07.2011, to count half of the casual service rendered by the Applicant in OA 23/2021 from 07.04.1995 to 08.08.2011 and grant all service benefits by treating the services of all the Applicants under old pension scheme. However, the Respondents are directed to refund the amount of contribution being recruited under new pension scheme from the pay of the Applicants and the said exercise shall be carried within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
37. OAs are allowed. No order as to costs.
(Lata Baswaraj Patne) Member (J) 31.05.2023