Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Khoob Lal vs D/O Post on 3 April, 2024
OA No. 121 of 2021
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench Allahabad
****
Original Application No.0121/2021
This the 03rd Day of April, 2024.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Shrivastava, Member (J)
Khoob Lal aged about 65 years son of Late Dev Nath R/o Village
and post Nai Bazar Sakaldiha District Chandauli.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri B.N. Singh.
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary Ministry of
Communication, (P&T) Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New
Delhi.
2. The Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow.
3. The Sr. Supdt. of Post offices, East Division, Varanasi.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan
ORDER
This OA has been filed on 28.01.2021 Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following relief(s) mentioned in Para-8 of the OA:-
"(i) To issue a suitable order or direction to the respondents to pay the monthly pension with arrears with panel interest 12% .
(ii) To issue a suitable order or direction to the respondents to pay the all consequential service post retrial benefits with panel interest 12%.1 OA No. 121 of 2021
(iii) To issue any other suitable order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.
(iv) To award cost of the petition in favour of the applicant."
2. As per the applicant, he was initially appointed on the post of Contingency Paid Chaukidar vide order dated 01.12.1972 (Annexure No. A-1). He gets temporary status by order dated 29.11.1989 (Annexure No. A-2) with effect from 29.11.1989. All facilities of Group 'D' employees including the scale, leave etc. were granted to the applicant. He served the department continuously, the regular pay scale was also granted. He was superannuated at the age of 60 years on 30.06.2015. He filed the representation for granting the pensionary benefits on 15.06.2020 (Annexure A-6) but the same has not been granted. Therefore, he filed this OA.
3. The respondents opposed the aforesaid contention by filing the Counter Affidavit. It is submitted by the respondents that the applicant was not regularized, therefore he is not entitled for the pensionary benefits.
4. The applicant again submitted the rejoinder on 16.05.2023 and draws attention towards the various case laws 2 OA No. 121 of 2021 and submits that as per established law, he is entitled to the benefit claim.
5. It is not in dispute that the applicant was initially appointed by Annexure A-1 as Contingency Paid Chaukidar on 01.12.1972. By order (Annexure A-2) dated 29.11.1989 the temporary status was granted to the applicant w.e.f. 29.11.1989. The name of the applicant is find place at Serial No.1 of Annexure A-1. He continuous served the department and superannuated on 30.06.2015.
6. It is argued by the learned counsel for applicant that the issue has been settled by several decisions of CAT, Hon'ble 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 the all benefits of regular employee of Group 'D' post, therefore, the respondents' cannot deny the benefit of pension and the post retiral benefits.
7. On the other side, it is argued by the respondents' counsel that in view of the order dated 20th December, 2007 passed by Single Bench of CAT, Lucknow Bench in OA 3 OA No. 121 of 2021 No.509/2005 (Ranjit Misra Versus U.O.I. & Ors.) and the benefits cannot be given to the applicant.
8. 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.
9. 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 Union (Regd.) &Ors. Vs. Mahanagar 5 Telephone Nigam Ltd. & Anr.,1989 SCR Supl (2) 329 = 1990 SCC Supl.113 = JT 1989 Supl. 364 = 1989 SCALE (2) 1455. Relevant paras of the 4 OA No. 121 of 2021 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."
10. 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 5 OA No. 121 of 2021 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 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 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."
11. 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. 29.11.2089. The O.A. No.1626 of 2005 was allowed on 28.07.2009 by 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 6 OA No. 121 of 2021 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 Court and there is no mention that the work of the respondent no.1 was unsatisfactory.
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."7 OA No. 121 of 2021
12. The S.L.P. No. 12664/2012, against the aforesaid judgment was also dismissed by 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.".
13. 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' employee 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 8 OA No. 121 of 2021 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 satisfactory nor reasonable. The application for condonation of delay is , therefore , dismissed.
Even on merits, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impunged judgment and order. Consequently the special Leave petition is dismissed both on ground of delay and merit."
14. 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.
15. 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."9 OA No. 121 of 2021
16. 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.
(5) Parmeshwar Singh Yadav Vs. U.O.I. etc., O.A. No. 1156 of 2022 decided on 26.02.2024. (6) Kalika Singh Vs. U.O.I. etc., O.A. No. 330 of 2021 decided on 27.02.2024.
17. Therefore, looking to the aforesaid settled position of the law any benefit cannot be granted to the respondents upon the basis of the Judgment passed in the case of Ranjit Misra (Supra).
18. The applicant 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 superannuated w.e.f. 30.06.2015. Therefore, after retirement, he is entitled to pensionary benefits. The respondents committed the mistake by refusing the aforesaid claim of the applicant.
10 OA No. 121 of 2021
19. Therefore, after consideration, the OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the pensionary benefits to the applicant from the date of superannuation i.e. 30.06.2015. The applicant is also entitled to the arrear of amount from the date 30.06.2015. The aforesaid exercise will be completed within a period of 04 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the arrear is not paid within the aforesaid period of 04 months, then, the simple interest will also be payable @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of actual payment of the amount.
20. No costs.
(Justice B.K. Shrivastava) Member (J) Shakuntala 11