Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Mrs. Devanti vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 June, 1999
JUDGMENT Jasbir S. Dhaliwal, Member (J)
1. This O.A. has been filed by Mrs. Devanti, widow of Late Sh. Ram Parsad who worked under the respondents as a Gangman since 16th of March, 1981. He had been subjected to screening for considering him for regularisation. This screening, though held on 23.3.1991, the result of the same was, however, not declared till 7.8.1995 and he, in the meantime, died on 23rd October, 1993 i.e. approximately 2 1/2 years after conducting of screening. Consequent upon the declaration of the result on 7.8.1995, order Annexure A-2 was issued regularising Late Sh. Ram Parsad and his name, alongwith other colleagues, appeared at Sr. No. 41 of the said order. On death of her husband, applicant was given compassionate appointment.
2. It is pleaded by the applicant that a very meagre sum was paid to her on account of gratuity and Provident Fund. She claims that as per Central Civil Service Rules, on death of her husband she became entitled for the grant of pensionary benefits i.e. family pension, and other ex-gratia benefits. She claims to have submitted a request to the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt. for providing such benefits and that she has made an application (Annexure A-4) in this regard, complete with requisite formalities. However, the respondents have failed to take any active steps with regard to the requests made and she states to have been verbally told that since her husband was not regularised by the department, she is not entitled to the aforesaid benefits. Applicant claims to have served a Legal Notice, dated 23.10.1997 (Annexure A-5), but still the respondents did not take any action. She pleads that her claim needs be admitted on the ground that ex-gratia benefits are the property of an employee and inaction on the part of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional, causing undue harassment and humiliation. The cause of action is recurring and the action of the respondents is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, as well as in infringement of legal rights of the applicant under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, apart from being in flagrant violation of Articles 14 and 21 thereof. Applicant has sought a direction to the respondents to release her all the arrears on account of ex-gratia benefits, claimed to be entitled for under Law.
3. On issuance of notice, respondents filed a brief reply dated 27.3.1998 taking the preliminary objection of limitation. Applicant however filed M.A. 143/98 which was considered and disposed of by order dated 15.7.1998, condoning the delay in filing O. A. In their reply, respondents have further pleaded that as per requirement in the case of Ram Parsad, HQs. Office, New Delhi were approached for obtaining ex post facto sanction as only General Manager was competent to engage casual labour w.e.f. 3.1.81. He was granted temporary status on 1.1.84. His screening was held on 27.3.91, 4.4.91, 21.8.91, 3.1.92 and 9.3.92 and the result was declared on 16.7.92 with remarks GM's approval is required, which post facto approval was received on 24.8.94 before which he had died. Since he had not been absorbed on regular post, he was treated as un-screened and accordingly settlement dues were arranged and as such pensionary benefits are not due to the widow. Respondents have denied receipt of notice u/s 80 CPC. Applicant has filed a rejoinder.
4. I have heard Ld. counsel on both the sides and have gone through the material on the file.
5. The facts which emerge from the pleadings, more particularly the pleadings of the respondents, are that Sh. Ram Parsad, applicant's husband was engaged as a casual labourer on 16.8.81. He was granted temporary status on 1.1.1984 and was put through screening held on 27.3.91, 4.4.91, 21.8.91, 3.1.92 and 9.3.92, result of which was declared on 16.7.92. It is not the case of the respondents that he was found unfit for regularisation. In fact, a reading of Annexure A - show that not only he was found fit for regularisation in the screening, but he was regularised and posted as per this order. The difficulty arises only with the fact that after declaration of the result of screening, the same was sent for approval of G.M., which was granted ex post facto, received by the department on 24.8.94. On its basis his regularisation and posting orders were passed as per Annexure A-2, but in the meanwhile he had died on 23.10.93. Respondents now plead that since he had died before actually reaping the fruits of his order of regularisation and posting, they are treating him as unscreened and only settlement dues were arranged for him which were Provident Fund--Rs. 15,127/- and Terminal Gratuity- Rs. 5,125/-. By treating him as unscreened, the other pensionary benefits like family pension, leave encashment, GIS and DCRG etc. have not been considered at all. This is a case which shows an apathetic situation where a casual worker, having been granted temporary status on 1.1.1984, was duly screened and found fit for regularisation, but it took the competent authority more than two years first to grant ex post facto approval and thereafter in issuing his regularisation and posting orders by the time he had left this world. The Courts have come across similar situations in some cases which are being referred to below, but before that a reference is made to Para 2005 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Vol. 11, which provides that casual labour shall be eligible to count half the period of service rendered by them after attaining temporary status before regular absorption as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. He had rendered service till 23.10.1993 in such a capacity after attaining temporary status.
6. In the case, of B.S. Rohilla v. Union of India and Ors., 1992(22) ATC 321, the Principal Bench of C.A.T. held that pension is no longer a compensation for loyal service but is a matter of right. In this case, the casual worker had rendered 25 years of service but had missed confirmation due to Govt.'s fault in not converting the temporary posts into permanent ones. The Bench held that he be deemed to have been confirmed before his retirement against one of the posts which should have been converted into permanent posts, which was not done due to apathy on the part of the respondent department. He was held entitled to pensionary benefits alongwith arrears, including DCRG etc. In the case of Jamini Bala Bera v. Union of India, 1993(25) ATC 254, the Calcutta Bench of C.A.T. considered the case of a Railway casual labour. The said person had rendered service as a casual labour for a long period after acquisition of temporary status like Shri Ram Parsad in the present case. The respondents had failed to regularise his services in due time and he had died. It was held, taking into consideration the case of Malatikar v. Union of India, 1992(21) ATC 583 and Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, 1992(4) SCC 118 that an employee cannot be expected to pursue the authorities for regularisation of his services. If the Railways, which are expected to be model employers, do not act according to rules, no blame can be put on a poor casual labourer. It was held that if a person continuously works as a casual worker for a number of years, he ought to have been regularised and failure to so regularise him is really a failure of the department and the department cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own failure. The case of the applicant was allowed with directions to pay Family Pension to the widow of the casual labourer.
7. Malatikar's case (supra) related to a casual worker. In this case the Calcutta Bench of C.A.T. considered a number of authorities while considering that casual Railway workers were denied pensionary benefits in absence of regularisation. The Bench held that if delay in regularisation is without any justification, the said casual railway workers must be deemed to have been regularised on the dates of their death. It held that widows should not be allowed to suffer due to inaction of the respondent Railways. Denial of Family Pension was held to be against all canons of justice, enquiry and fair play in this case. In yet another case of Joy Deb Santra v. Union of India, ATR 1988(2) CAT 483, the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal considered the Railway Board circulars dated 14.10.1980 and 8.6.1981. In this case also the grant of temporary status on completion of 120 days was considered. Absence to screen a worker for regularisation was taken to be a failure on the part of the respondent department. It was held that it is the duty of the respondents to screen the workers in time according to the directions of the Railway Board and regularise their services accordingly. This was not done by them for no fault of the workers. It was held that such a worker cannot be denied retiral benefits available to temporary Railway employees.
8. Considering the facts of the present case in the light of the law discussed above, this Bench is of the opinion that the case of the applicant is on a much better and sound footing than the cases mentioned above. After acquisition of temporary status, Ram Parsad had been screened and found fit through the result declared on 16.7.1992. His name appeared in the list of persons so regularised and posted. His widow has been denied the benefits only due to the reason that the respondent department failed to give effect to the result in his case immediately on 16.7.1992 for a period of three years when he was regularised. Such a failure on the part of the respondents cannot be made a valid ground for refusal of the benefits to Ram Parsad and his widow. In the present case, this Bench is of the opinion that it be deemed that Sh. Ram Parsad stood regularised w.e.f. 16.7.1992 for which ex post facto approval was given by G.M. on 24.8,94. With this date of regularisation, his widow is found entitled to all the terminal benefits under the relevant rules w.e.f. 24.10.1993. The respondents shall work out the same, including Family Pension and DCRG etc., and release the same to the widow of Ram Parsad within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. She would be entitled to interest on the arrears at the rate of interest permissible under the relevant rules, upto the date of actual payment. It is, however, clarified that fixation of date of regularisation in the case of Ram Parsad in the present case is not to be treated as a precedent for other cases which is specific to the facts of this case. The O.A. is accordingly allowed and disposed of with no order as to costs.