Jharkhand High Court
Pushpa Devi vs Union Of India Through The Chief ... on 21 April, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
2026:JHHC:11585-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.5159 of 2018
-----
Pushpa Devi, aged about 45 years, Wife of Late Shrawan
Kumar (EX-T/S, Group-D), Residing of Village-Sindur,
Siyari, Nawadih, P.O. + P.S.-Sindur, District-Hazaribag.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through the Chief Postmaster General,
Department of Post, Director, Postal Service at Ranchi,
P.O.+P.S. Ranchi, District-Ranchi Jharkhand.
2. The Director, Postal Service at Ranchi, P.O.+P.S. Ranchi,
District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Superintendent of Postal, Post Office, Hazaribag
Division Hazaribag, P.O.+P.S.+District- Hazaribag,
Jharkhand.
4. The Senior Postmaster, Hazaribag, P.O.+ P.S.+ District-
Hazaribag, Jharkhand. ... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Pallav, A.S.G.I.
: Ms. Shivani Jaluka, AC to ASGI
------
Order No. 16/Dated 21st April, 2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 10.11.2017 passed in O.A. No.051/00146/2016 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for death-cum-retiral benefits as well as compassionate appointment has been rejected. 1
2026:JHHC:11585-DB Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, read as under :-
The husband of the applicant Late Shrawan Kumar was appointed as contingent paid part-time Waterman at Hazaribagh Post Office w.e.f. 14.08.1987 vide memo dated 01.02.1989. On 27.08.1991 The husband of the applicant submitted a representation stating that he was getting allowance for only 5 hours. Therefore, he may be appointed in the Canteen which will allow him to get payment on the basis of 8 hours.
Thereafter, vide Memo dated 30.09.1991 of Superintendent of Post Offices, Hazaribagh Division intimated that in pursuance of Secretary, Posts, New Delhi letter dated 16.08.1991 circulated vide Chief PMG, Bihar Circle, Patna letter dated 16.09.1991, three contingent part time Waterman including the applicant's husband were brought on the strength of full-time casual labourers w.e.f. 01.10.1991 and they were also granted temporary status w.e.f. 01.10.19991 under the provisions laid down in DG, Department of Posts, New Delhi letter No. 45-95/87-SPB I dated 12.04.1991 communicated under the CPMG, Bihar Circle, Patna R&E 47/RLG/CH2 dated 15.05.1991. This letter also stated that 50% of the service rendered under 2 2026:JHHC:11585-DB temporary status would be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits after regularization as a regular Group 'D' official.
It was also mentioned that conferment of temporary status does not automatically imply that they would be appointed as a regular Group 'D' employee within a fixed time frame. Appointment of Group 'D' vacancies would be continued to be done as per the extant recruitment rules. The letter further stated that after rendering three years continuous service after conferment of temporary status they would be treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employee for the purpose of contribution of General Provident Fund, Grant of Festival Advance etc. Thereafter, vide the order dated 29.06.1998 the applicant on three years continuous service as temporary status was treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employee to avail the benefits available under the terms and conditions. The order mentions 10 employees, the name of applicant's husband figured at Sl. No. 5 in which it was shown grant of temporary status as 01.10.1991 and date of effect of treating at par with Group 'D' as 01.10.1994.
The husband of the writ petitioner, namely, Shrawan Kumar, passed away on 31.07.2014 as a temporary status employee. Thereafter, the applicant applied before the Chief PMG stating that after grant of temporary status her 3 2026:JHHC:11585-DB husband had rendered continuous service to the Department for 23 years. Despite such a pretty long time he was not absorbed in regular Group 'D' post. She has requested that her husband should be treated as regular Group 'D' employee and accordingly she be given compassionate appointment. This prayer was rejected vide order dated 10.02.2015 by the competent authority.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.02.2015, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi by filing original application being O.A. No.146/2016 for setting aside the order rejecting her claim for compassionate appointment and death-cum-retiral benefit.
The respondents have appeared and filed their written statement in which they have stated that the applicant's husband was given temporary status and thereafter, after three years some benefits at par with temporary Group 'D' employee only for specific purposes mentioned in the letter.
The husband of the petitioner, namely, Shri Shrawan Kumar died on 31.07.2014 as a temporary status employee and he was not appointed as regular Group 'D' employee.
The respondents have further stated that compassionate appointment is only applicable in case of 4 2026:JHHC:11585-DB death of regular government servant and not for those working on daily wages/casual/contract or ad-hoc basis.
It has been stated in the written statement that Late Shrawan Kumar was at 5th position in the seniority list of casual labour with temporary status. As per the year wise vacancy Shri Gopal Kumar who was in the 4th position of the seniority list in the Memo dated 29.06.1998 was engaged in Group 'D' vacancy for the year 2015-16. Late Shrawan Kumar would have been engaged in the Group 'D' for the vacancy of 2016-17 but unfortunately, he died on 31.07.2014. Therefore, his case for compassionate appointment could not be considered under the departmental rules and regulations.
The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, has dismissed the original application vide order dated 10.11.2017 against which the present writ petition has been filed.
3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the deceased employee, the husband of the writ petitioner, has been inducted in service in the capacity of contingent employee on 14.08.1987 and while continuing as such, the deceased employee had been conferred with the temporary status vide office order dated 01.10.1991 holding him entitled to get the benefit of retiral benefits in a situation when the deceased employee would be regularized in service. 5
2026:JHHC:11585-DB
4. The decision of regularization has not been taken although it was under consideration, as per the stand inter alia taken by the respondent-Union of India and due to non- availability of the vacancies, for the particular vacancy year, as per the policy decision dated 27.01.2011.
5. The case of the deceased employee when was under
consideration awaiting the vacancy for the year 2016-17, unfortunately the employee has died on 31.07.2014 and the order of regularization has not been passed due to demise of the employee.
6. The representation although was said to be given as per the plea taken on behalf of the petitioner in the year 2011 for regularization of the deceased employee but no decision has been taken and, in the meanwhile, the employee has died.
7. The wife of the deceased employee, the writ petitioner, has approached to the Tribunal by filing the Original Application seeking therein the following reliefs :-
"(i) The application for a direction to the respondents for setting aside the Order dated 10.02.2015 by which the claim for death-cum-retiral benefits including compassionate appointment of the applicant namely Smt. Pushpa Devi, w/o late Shrawan Kumar (Ex-T/S- Group -D) has been refused on the ground that, there is no provision of relaxation of appointment in Temporary status Group-D cadre, whereas a series of judgment in favour of the Applicant And further direction upon the Respondents to appoint the applicant in the place of her husband Late Shrawan Kumar (Ex- T/s, 6 2026:JHHC:11585-DB Group D) who has worked continuously till the date of his death, i.e. 31.07.2014 about 23 years of service continuously without any break and further direction to release the retiral benefits after treating as a regular employee, i.e. LTC, Leave Encashment, Gratuity, Provisional as well as full pension, Medical and Housing Allowance and all other legal dues with the interest on the current market rate.
(ii) Directing the respondents to release the death-cum-retiral dues, which were not paid to the Applicant with interest.
(iii) The cost of litigation may be awarded upon the Respondents."
8. The ground inter alia has been taken therein that the temporary status although had been given way back in the year 1991 but due to the laches on the part of the respondent authorities, there was no regularization in service and in the meanwhile, the employee, the husband of the writ petitioner, has died.
9. The applicant, the writ petitioner herein, therefore, while invoking the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal, has taken the ground that since there is no laches on the part of the deceased employee, as such, if the decision would have been taken by the respondent authorities in time, then the deceased husband of the writ petitioner would have been regularized and in such situation being widow, would have got all the post death benefit including the employment on compassionate ground and, therefore, the prayer has been made before the learned Tribunal to treat the deceased employee to be under the regular establishment and confer the status of regular employee and thereafter provide 7 2026:JHHC:11585-DB appointment on compassionate ground as also direction to release the post death benefit including the family pension.
10. The respondents have appeared and contested the case by filing written statement by taking the ground that in view of the admitted fact that the deceased husband of the writ petitioner was in the capacity of temporary status having not been inducted in the regular establishment under Group-D service and, as such, there cannot be appointment on compassionate ground and there cannot be regularization as also the writ petitioner, being the widow of the deceased employee, cannot claim the benefit of family pension.
11. The learned Tribunal, on appreciating the stand inter alia taken before it, has dismissed the original application based upon the reason that so long as there is no appointment in the substantive basis under the establishment of the respondent, no right to get the family pension.
12. So far as the issue of regularization is concerned, the stand since was taken that under the scheme of 27.01.2011, 25% quota is only to be filled up by inducting the employee having temporary status, and, therefore, having limitation on the vacancies, the deceased husband of the writ petitioner, being 5th in Serial Number, whose turn was to come of the vacancy of the year 2016-17 but in the meanwhile, he has died.
8
2026:JHHC:11585-DB
13. The learned Tribunal, on consideration of the aforesaid aspect of the matter, has dismissed the original application against which the present writ petition. Submission of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner
14. Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, has taken the following grounds in assailing the order passed by the learned Tribunal:-
(i) The learned Tribunal has not appreciated the fact that even though there was no laches on the part of the deceased husband of the writ petitioner in getting the service regularized even though he has been conferred with the temporary status way back in the year 1991.
(ii) The plea which has been taken and having been considered by the learned Tribunal that the turn of the deceased husband of the writ petitioner was to be considered for the vacancy of the year 2016-17, being 5th in Serial Number in the list of candidates for inducting under the regular establishment, and in the meanwhile, due to death of her husband, the order of regularization could not have been passed which itself is the admission on the part of the respondents accepting the fact of temporary status way back in the year 1991, her husband has not been regularized in service.9
2026:JHHC:11585-DB
(iii) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Uma Devi (3) and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 for the purpose of strengthening his argument that the ratio which has been laid down in the said case, particularly, the observation so made in paragraph 53 thereof, the case of the deceased husband of the writ petitioner ought to have been taken into consideration the moment he has completed the tenure of service and on the date when the judgment was delivered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Uma Devi (3) and Others (Supra), i.e., on 01.07.2006, the deceased husband of the writ petitioner has already completed more than the period of 19 years from the date of induction in service and 15 years from the date when the deceased husband of the writ petitioner got the temporary status. Therefore, submission has been made that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the factum of applicability of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Uma Devi (3) and Others (Supra) and having not done so, the order passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from an error.
10
2026:JHHC:11585-DB Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-UOI:
15. Per contra, Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, has taken the following grounds in defending the impugned judgment :-
(i) It has been contended that the learned Tribunal has gone into the fact of entitlement either of appointment on compassionate ground or the family pension which is only available to the employee if inducted in service on substantive capacity.
(ii) It has been contended that herein the admitted fact is that the deceased husband of the writ petitioner has not been regularized in service and, as such, he was not in the substantive service and by that way the writ petitioner or the dependent of the employee cannot be held entitled for appointment on compassionate ground or even for the family pension.
(iii) So far as the issue of regularization is concerned, the respondent authorities had acted upon on the basis of the policy decision as available in communication dated 27.01.2011 wherein 25% quota of the total vacancies has been decided to be filled up from the employee having been conferred with temporary status and while doing so, the name of the deceased husband of the writ petitioner was figuring at Sl. No.5 and depending upon 11 2026:JHHC:11585-DB the vacancy position, the case of the deceased husband of the writ petitioner was expected to be considered for the vacancy of the year 2016-17 but in the meanwhile, he has died.
(iv) The fact remains that the deceased husband of the writ petitioner was not regularized in service and, therefore, the question of appointment on compassionate ground or the family pension does not arise.
(v) The argument, therefore, has been advanced that whatever has been considered by the learned Tribunal that is based upon sound principle and coming to the conclusion of entitlement of the writ petitioner for regularization or the appointment on compassionate ground or the family pension. The learned Tribunal is correct in declining to pass positive direction in favour of the writ petitioner.
(vi) Learned counsel for the respondents, to buttress his argument, has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Another v. Santosh reported in (2006) 11 SCC 157.
16. Learned counsel, on the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the order passed by the learned Tribunal requires no interference.
12
2026:JHHC:11585-DB Analysis
17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the order passed by the learned Tribunal and the pleading made on behalf of the respective parties as available on record.
18. The basic fact which requires consideration is -
(i) As to whether without being regularized in service, the writ petitioner being widow of the deceased employee, can be held entitled for family pension?
(ii) Whether in such circumstances the dependent of the deceased employee can be held to be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground?
(iii) Whether merely filing of a representation in 2011 and if during pendency of the said representation, the employee died who was yet to be regularized by inducting in regular establishment, can any right be conferred in favour of the writ petitioner being the dependent of the deceased employee for getting all such benefits like regularization, compassionate appointment and the family pension etc.?
19. All the issues since are interlinked, as such, are being taken up together. But before consideration of the said issue, this Court needs to refer herein the jurisdiction which is being exercised by this Court which is certainly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only in order to assess 13 2026:JHHC:11585-DB the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Tribunal, by way of power of judicial review.
20. This Court is conscious that while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the learned Tribunal, the power of judicial review is to be exercised as per the ratio laid down in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 at paragraph 99 wherein it has been held that the High Court is having power of judicial review to look into the legality and propriety of the order of the tribunal to the extent that if the order passed by the tribunal suffers from any perversity or the order is passed without following the principles of natural justice or there is error apparent on the face of order. For ready reference, paragraph 99 of the judgment is quoted as under:-
"99. In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that clause 2(d) of Article 323-A and clause 3(d) of Article 323-B, to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional. Section 28 of the Act and the "exclusion of jurisdiction" clauses in all other legislations enacted under the aegis of Articles 323-A and 323- B would, to the same extent, be unconstitutional. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is a part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted other courts and Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The Tribunals created under Article 323-A and 14 2026:JHHC:11585-DB Article 323- B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated."
21. The power of judicial review has also been deliberated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which is to be considered while exercising the said power only to the extent that if any order is being passed found to be having error on the face of the order or without jurisdiction or suffers from perversity. The error apparent on the face of the order means that if the order appears on its face having with error, then only the power of judicial review is to be exercised.
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of West Bengal Central School Service Commission vs. Abdul Halim, (2019) 18 SCC 39, has held at paragraph-30 that the power of judicial review must be exercised by the Court after determining that the impugned order is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record and not the same has been established by a process of reasoning. Paragraph-30 of the aforesaid judgment is being referred as under:- 15
2026:JHHC:11585-DB "30. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale [Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137] . ---."
23. It is evident that the power of judicial review is to be exercised only in two situations, i.e., if there is any error on the face of the order or the finding suffers from perversity.
24. The element of perversity has been raised. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State [Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 206 while elaborately discussing the word perverse has held that it is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm in law. Relevant paragraphs, i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment reads as under:-
"24. The expression "perverse" has been dealt with in a number of cases. In Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad [(2001) 1 SCC 501] this Court observed that the expression "perverse"16
2026:JHHC:11585-DB means that the findings of the subordinate authority are not supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity.
25. In Parry's (Calcutta) Employees' Union v. Parry & Co. Ltd. [AIR 1966 Cal 31] the Court observed that "perverse finding" means a finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. In Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994 SC 1341] the Court observed that this is not a case where it can be said that the findings of the authorities are based on no evidence or that they are so perverse that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings.
26. In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977 Kant 58] the Court observed that any order made in conscious violation of pleading and law is a perverse order. In Moffett v. Gough [(1878) 1 LR 1r 331] the Court observed that a "perverse verdict" may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. In Godfrey v. Godfrey [106 NW 814] the Court defined "perverse" as turned the wrong way, not right; distorted from the right; turned away or deviating from what is right, proper, correct, etc.
27. The expression "perverse" has been defined by various dictionaries in the following manner:
1. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, 6th Edn.
"Perverse.--Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable."
2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, International Edn.
Perverse.--Deliberately departing from what is normal and reasonable.
3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn. 17
2026:JHHC:11585-DB Perverse.--Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law.
4. The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edn.) Perverse.--Purposely deviating from accepted or expected behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant.
5. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, 4th Edn.
"Perverse.--A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence."
25. This Court is now proceeding to examine the propriety of the order passed by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the pleading as available in the paper book having been placed while arguing the case by learned counsel for both the parties.
26. The admitted fact herein is that the deceased husband of the writ petitioner has been inducted in service as a contingent employee on 14.08.1987 and has got the temporary status on 01.10.1991.
27. The decision so taken conferring the temporary status has been made available in the communication dated 30.09.1991, for ready reference, the same is being referred herein :-
"DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, INDIA OFFICE OF THE SUPDT. OF POST OFFICES HAZARIBAGH DIVISION.
Letter No.-A-1/Misc/Part time employee/ Ch III Dtd. at H.Bagh the 30.09.91 18 2026:JHHC:11585-DB In pursuance of the Secretary Posts New letter No.- 45/37/91-SPB.I dtd. 16.8.91, Circulated under the Chief P.M.G. Bihar Circle Patna letter No. EST/E-34/RS/VI/RLG dtd. 16.9.91, the following contingent paid part time employee brunt on the strength of full time Casual labourers will effect from 1.10.01 with the clear understanding that the posts of Hazaribagh takes eight hours duties from them daily. Simultaneous they are herby granted temporary status w.e.f. 1.10.91 under to provisions as laid down in the D.G. Department of Posts, New Delhi letter no. 45-95/87-SPB I dtd. 12.4.91, communicated under the C.I.M.G. Bihar Circle, Patna letter No. R & E-47/Rl/ch II dtd. 15.5.91.
1. Sri Gopal Hazaribagh. Kumar Contingent paid part time water man,
2. Sri Sharwan Kumar, Contingent paid part time water man, Hazaribagh.
3. Sri Ramu Ram contingent paid part time water man, Hazaribagh.
2. They are engaged for full working hours viz 8 hours including 1/2 hours lunch time. They will be paid at daily rates on the basis of the minimum of the pay scale for a regular group 'D' official including DA and HRA.
3. Benefit of increment at the same rate as applicable to a group 'D' employee would be taken into account for calculating per month rate wage after completion of one year of service from the date of conferment of temporary status. Such increment will be taken into account after every one year of service subject to performance of duty for at least 240 days in the year.
4. Leave entitlement will be one day for every 10 days of work. Casual leave or any other kind of leave will not be admissible. No encashment of leave is permissible on termination of services for any reason or on their quitting service.
5. 50% of the service rendered under temporary status would be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits after regularization as a regular group 'D' official.
6. Conferment of Temporary status does not automatically imply that they would be appointed as a regular Group 'D' employee within any fixed time frame. Appointment to group 19 2026:JHHC:11585-DB 'D' vacancies will continue to be done as per the extend recruitment rules, which stipulate preference to illegible ED employees.
7. After rendering three years continuous service after conferment of Temporary status, they would be treated at of General Provident Fund. They would also further be eligible conditions as are festival Advance/ Blood Advance on the same provided they furnish two sureties from permanent Govt. Servants at the Department.
8. Their entitlement to productivity Linked Bonus will continue to be at the rate applicable to casual labourers.
9. Temporary status does not debar disposing with their services after following the due procedure.
10. If they with Temporary status commit misconduct and the same is proved in an enquiry after giving them reasonable opportunities, their services will be dispensed with.
11. For purpose of appointment as a regular group 'D' official they will be allowed age relaxation to the extort of service rendered by them as contingent paid employees.
Sd/-
(A. Prasad) Supdt. of Post Offices, Hazaribagh Division
28. It is evident from the aforesaid communication that the respondent has taken decision while conferring the temporary status with a further decision that 50% of the service rendered under temporary status would be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits after regularization as a regular group 'D' official.
29. The office order which has been issued as available in the communication dated 27.01.2011 by which the decision was taken for regularizing the services of one or the other employee who have been conferred with temporary status, reflects that 25% of the total vacancy of MTS (Group-20
2026:JHHC:11585-DB D) for each year to be filled up by appointment of casual labourers conferred with temporary status, for ready reference, the same is being referred herein :-
"MOST IMMEDIATE No. 45-2/2011-SPB-1 Government of India Ministry of Communications & IT (Department of Posts) Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 Dated 27th January, 2011.
To
1. All Chief Post Masters General.
2. CGM, PLI Subject: Action to be taken to fill up the vacancies on the basis of latest Recruitment Rules for the post of Multi Tasking Staff.
Sir/Madam, I am directed to forward herewith a copy of Recruitment Rules for the posts of Multi Tasking Staff dated 16th December, 2010 gazette notified on 20th December 2010. It may be observed that the notified Recruitment Rules provide to fill up the vacancies as under (For full text please refer to the recruitment Rules) Vacancies in Circle and Administrative Offices:
1.(a) 25% by appointment of Casual Labourers conferred with temporary status on the basis of Selection-cum-seniority falling which by,
(b) Appointment of existing Casual labourers engaged on or before 1.9.1993 working, for full hours viz. 8 hours, on the basis of selection-cum-seniority failing which by.
(c) Appointment of existing part-time Casual Labourers, engaged on or before 1.9 1993, on the basis of selection-cum- seniority failing which by,
(d) Direct recruitment as per the scheme circulated by the Department of Posts from time to time.
(e) 75% by direct recruitment as per the scheme circulated by the Department of Posts from time to time.
Vacancies in Subordinate Offices:
i) 50% by direct recruitment from amongst Gramin Dak Sevaks of the recruiting Division or Unit, on the basis of Selection-cum seniority.21
2026:JHHC:11585-DB
ii) (a) 25% by direct recruitment on the basis of Competitive Examination restricted to the Gramin Dak Sevaks of the Division or Unit failing which by,
(b) Direct recruitment from amongst Gramin Dak Sevaks of the recruiting Division or Unit, on the basis of Selection-cum- seniority.
iii) (a)25% by appointment of Casual Laborers conferred with temporary status on the basis of Selection-cum-seniority failing which by,
(b) Appointment of Casual Laborers engaged on or before 01.09.1993, working for full hours viz. 8 hours a day, on the basis of selection-cum-seniority, falling which by,
(c) Appointment of Casual Laborers conferred with temporary status in the neighboring Division or unit on the basis of selection-cum-seniority, falling which by.
(d) Appointment of Casual Laborers engaged on or before 1.9.1993, working for full hours viz 8 hours, of the neighboring Division or unit on the basis of selection-cum- seniority failing which by,
(e) Appointment of part-time Casual Labourers engaged on or before 1.9.1993, of the recruiting Division or Unit on the basis of selection-cum-Seniority failing which by.
(f) Direct recruitment from amongst Gramin Dak Sevaks on the basis of their seniority in the Division or unit. Failing (i), (ii) and (lii) above by direct recruitment from open market.
2. In order to initiate action to fill up the vacancies of the years 2009 and 2010 the Circles may work out the vacancies falling under various modes of filling up as provided in the Recruitment Rules. Wherever applicable the vacancies may be assessed Division/Unit wise. The direct recruitment vacancies of the erstwhile Group 'D' not cleared under Annual direct Recruitment Plans of the years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 should not be taken in to consideration while assessing the vacancies.
3. The vacancies so assessed may please be furnished to the Directorate by 10th February, 2011 positively in the enclosed proforma.
4. Once the Circles complete the process of identification of vacancies to be filled up by various modes they may proceed further to fill up the following vacancies:
(a) Vacancies in Circle and Administrative Offices:
25% of vacancies to be filled up by appointment of Casual Labourers.
(b) Vacancies in Subordinate Offices:
i) 50% of vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment from amongst Gramin Dak Sevaks of the recruiting Division or Unit, on the basis of Selection-cum seniority.
ii) 25% of vacancies to be filled up by appointment of Casual Laborers.22
2026:JHHC:11585-DB
5. The Circles are requested to process the above said appointments in such time-frame so that the appointment orders are issued by 29th March, 2011.
6. As regard the vacancies to be filled up by Departmental examination and direct recruitment the Directorate is in the process of finalizing the syllabus and scheme for examination. The same will be conveyed to the Circles shortly to enable them to fill up those posts also,
7. Receipt of this letter may be acknowledged.
Yours faithfully, (Salim Haque) Deputy Director General (P) Tel. No. 23096093"
30. The case of the deceased husband of the petitioner has been decided to be considered and he was found to be at Sl. No.5. The turn of the candidate at Sl. No.5 will come for the vacancy of the year 2016-17 but unfortunately the deceased husband of the petitioner has died on 31.07.2014.
31. It has been claimed by the petitioner that her deceased husband had represented before the authority for his regularization but no action has been taken.
32. The reference of the judgment rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Uma Devi (3) and Others (Supra) has also been taken.
33. This Court, therefore, after referring the admitted fact needs to refer herein the proposition which has been laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Uma Devi (3) and Others (Supra) and the background thereof under which the said proposition has been laid down as referred in paragraph 53 thereof.23
2026:JHHC:11585-DB
34. The background of the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Uma Devi (3) and Others (Supra) was to put restriction upon the backdoor entry which was being made by inducting the person concerned in the daily rated capacity which would be evident from paragraph 45 of the said judgment which is being referred herein :-
"45. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularised or made permanent, the courts are swayed by the fact that the person concerned has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with open eyes. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain--not at arm's length--since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. If the court were to void a contractual employment of this nature on the ground that the parties were not having equal bargaining power, that too would not enable the court to grant any relief to that employee. A total embargo on such casual or temporary employment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration and if imposed, would only mean that some people who at least get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be getting even that employment when securing of such employment brings at least some succour to them. After all, innumerable citizens of our vast country are in search of employment and one is not compelled to accept a casual or temporary employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an employment. It is in that context that one has to proceed on the basis that the employment was accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the consequences flowing from it. In other words, even while accepting the employment, the person concerned knows the nature of his 24 2026:JHHC:11585-DB employment. It is not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the term. The claim acquired by him in the post in which he is temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be considered to be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the procedure established, for making regular appointments to available posts in the services of the State. The argument that since one has been working for some time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even though he was aware of the nature of the employment when he first took it up, is not one that would enable the jettisoning of the procedure established by law for public employment and would have to fail when tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution."
35. But, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while taking the lenient view, as also having concern with the administrative function, has made an observation to regularize the services of such employees who has been inducted in service in the capacity of daily rated employees by way of one time exercise on fulfilment of the condition of 10 years of continuous service by one or the other employee without having aid of any interim order passed by any court of law, for ready reference, paragraph 53 of the judgment rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Uma Devi (3) and Others (Supra) is being referred herein :-
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [AIR 1967 SC 1071] , R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The 25 2026:JHHC:11585-DB question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
36. The purpose of making reference of the judgment rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Uma Devi (3) and Others (Supra) on behalf of the petitioner is that at the moment the judgment in the aforesaid case has come, it was incumbent upon the respondent authorities to issue the order of regularization but having not done so, the duty which has been casted by the Hon'ble Apex Court upon the respondents has not been carried out.
37. This Court, while considering the aforesaid submission, is of the view that there is no dispute that Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Uma Devi (3) 26 2026:JHHC:11585-DB and Others (Supra) judgment has casted accountability upon the respondents to undertake the exercise for regularization by way of one-time exercise which even though has not been taken on behalf of the respondent.
38. The judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Uma Devi (3) and Others (Supra) has been rendered on 01.07.2006 and as is being submitted on behalf of the petitioner that her deceased husband had already completed as on 01.07.2006 the total service of 19 years from the date he has entered into the service and 15 years from the date he has got the temporary status. But it is also admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased husband of the petitioner has not questioned the alleged lethargic approach by not acting upon on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court by agitating such grievance before the appropriate forum.
39. The question, therefore, is that even accepting that Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Uma Devi (3) and Others (Supra) judgment has come in the meanwhile and when it was not being complied with, it was the bounden duty of the deceased husband of the writ petitioner while he was surviving and was in service to approach the court of law to seek a direction for consideration of his case. But he has chosen not to do so, rather, as has been submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that some representation was 27 2026:JHHC:11585-DB filed in the year 2011, as has been appended as Annexure- 10 to the writ petition.
40. The law is well settled that merely filing of the representation cannot be construed that the concerned aggrieved party has chosen the appropriate forum, rather, the duty casted upon the aggrieved party is to approach to the court of law without waiting for the outcome of the pending representation that too for unreasonable period. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty & Ors. Vs. State of Mysore & Anr., AIR 1967 SC 993, wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that representation would not be adequate explanation to take care of delay. Same view was reiterated in State of Orissa v. Pyari Mohan Samantaray, AIR 1976 SC 2617 and State of Orissa vs. Arun Kumar Patnaik (1976) 3 SCC 579 and the said view has also been followed in the case of Shiv Dass v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1330.
41. The fact remains herein that the deceased husband of the writ petitioner has not been regularized in service, as such, in this pretext, whether any right has been accrued upon the widow of the deceased employee to seek a direction for regularization after death of the deceased employee and the appointment on compassionate ground or the benefit of 28 2026:JHHC:11585-DB family pension, being dependent upon the issue of regularization.
42. Regularization presupposes the existence of an employee in service. It cannot be granted after termination from service, nor can it be extended posthumously after the departure of life.
43. If any direction would be passed after termination of an employee or after demise of the concerned employee, then the question would be that who will be regularized. If a person is not in service, then there is no question of regularization reason being that regularization can only be in the service of a person and if the person is not in service where is the question of regularization. Likewise, if a person concerned has died then who will be regularized.
44. There is no deeming fiction that merely because an employee has completed the statutory period or the eligibility criteria, such employee will be deemed to be regularized. Regularization means actual regularization and cannot be a deeming fiction.
45. This Court, having discussed the aforesaid thing, is of the view that after death of the deceased employee, there cannot be any direction for regularization and in absence of order of regularization, the status of the deceased husband of the petitioner being admitted of the temporary status and the law is well settled as per the applicable rule also that 29 2026:JHHC:11585-DB appointment on compassionate ground is depending upon the scheme to be given only to the dependent of the employee who has died in harness while discharging substantive service under the regular establishment.
46. In the factum of admitted position that the deceased husband of the petitioner since has died before regularization and, as such, there cannot be any direction of regularization and by that way since he has not been taken under the regular establishment, the dependent has got no right for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground.
47. Similarly, the family pension is dependent upon the accrual of right to get the pension by the employee concerned. The pension is only admissible in favour of an employee who has been found to be there in the substantive service. It needs to refer herein that in Rule 49 of CCS Pension Rules, 1972 the entitlement of pension has been referred to be made entitled in favour of any employee who has been found to be in substantive service and on completion of qualifying service of 10 years.
48. The family pension is admissible to the widow of the deceased employee or the minor children of the deceased employee, as the case may be. The family pension is not available under the statutory CCS (Pension)Rules, rather, it depends upon the scheme. The scheme admittedly has been 30 2026:JHHC:11585-DB formulated by the respondents but when the entitlement of pension is not there, then where is the question of family pension.
49. This Court, after having discussed the aforesaid facts, based upon the legal position and adverting to the order passed by the learned Tribunal, has found that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration that the deceased husband of the petitioner has not been regularized and, therefore, the dependent is not entitled for compassionate appointment and similarly, the family pension.
50. This Court, therefore, has found that there is no error apparent on the face of the order and the order passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from the element of perversity, as such, this Court, in exercise of power of judicial review, is of the view that the order impugned needs no interference.
51. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated : 21.04.2026 A.F.R. Birendra/ 31