IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Chapter VIII, Rule 32(2) (b) Description of case Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.427 of 2001 (S/B) (Old No. 45637 of 2000) Date of decision: 18.02.2008 A.F.R. (Approved for Reporting) ____________________________ Not Approved for Reporting Date 18.02.2008 Initials of Judge Note: Bench Reader will attach this at the top of first page of the judgment when it is put up before the Judge for signature. HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 427 (S/B) of 2001 (Old No. 45637 of 2000) 1. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Communication, Govt. of India New Delhi 2. The Chief Post Master General U.P. Circle, Lucknow 3. The Superintendent of Post Offices Pithoragarh, Division Pithoragarh .......Petitioners Versus 1. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad 2. Chandra Devi Bhatt W/o Late Sri Mathura Dutt Bhatt R/o village Reuna Post Bharktiya District Pithoragarh, U.P. .......Respondents Dated :-18th February, 2008 Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, Addl. Standing Counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Amicus Curiae for respondent no. 2. Coram: Hon'ble V. K. Gupta, C.J. Hon'ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Per:- Hon'ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. 1. By means of this writ petition under section 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought the following prayers:- (i) Call for the record, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.07.2000 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no.1. (ii) issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. (iii) Award costs of this petition to the petitioners from the contesting respondents. 2. Brief facts for disposal of this case are that respondent no.2 Chandra Devi Bhatt, the wife of late Shri Mathura Dutt Bhatt filed a claim petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal alleging therein that her husband Mathura Dutt Bhatt served in the Sub-Post Office of Pithoragarh as Contingency Paid Chaukidar w.e.f. 15.09.1978. The department has never considered the case of her husband to get him regularized in the department. It was further alleged that her husband was granted temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989 in view of the Circular issued in the year 1992 (Annexure-7 to the claim petition). The husband of respondent no.2 has completed three years of service with temporary status on 28.11.1992 and as such he was entitled to be treated temporary Group 'D' of the regular establishment and was entitled all those benefits of his services as regular establishment. The husband of respondent no.2 died on 26.11.1994 and after the death of her husband, the respondent no.2 made a representation before the department seeking compassionate appointed. On the said application, the department vide letter dated 7.03.1996 has informed that the compassionate appointment cannot be given to respondent no.2. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 has come up before the Tribunal seeking reliefs to grant the family pension, leave encashment, gratuity like other benefits treating the deceased employee in regular establishment. 3. The writ petitioners contested the claim petition before the Tribunal. It was admitted to the petitioners that the husband of Smt. Chandra Devi Bhatt was initially employed as purely causal labour in the department in the year 1978. It was further alleged in the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal that the husband of respondent no.2 was not absorbed as regular group 'D' employees against any regular group 'D' post of temporary or permanent nature. It was further alleged that the husband of respondent no.2 was not granted regular appointment and as such, the respondent no.2 cannot claim for pensionary benefits like others. The respondent no.2 was not entitled to get the pensionary benefit as her husband died as a contingency paid Chaukidar and was not regularized by the department. It was further alleged that post of contingency paid Chaukidar have been made of temporary status and not regular as departmental Group 'D' post. Therefore, the pensionary benefits as claimed by the respondent no.2 are not admissible. 4. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal vide order dated 21.07.2000 allowed the claim petition of the respondent no. 2 with the directions that the family pension and pensionary benefits as applicable to temporary Group 'D' employees shall be worked out and paid to the respondent no.2 within four months of receipt of its order, the Tribunal has held that the family pension should be computed by taking length of service w.e.f. 29.11.1989. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of learned Tribunal, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners-Union of India. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the husband of respondent no. 2 was not entitled to get the pensionary benefits as claimed in the claim petition and limited benefits had to be granted to Mathura Dutt Bhatt in view of the Order dated 12.04.1991. The husband of respondent no.2 was not in Group 'D' establishment, as such, he has not entitled for the pensionary benefits. 8. The learned Amicus Curiae appearing for respondent No. 2 refuted the contention and contended that the Order issued in the month of December 1992 (Annexure-7 to the claim petition) clarifying the Order dated 12.4.1991 provides that the casual labourers rendering three years of continuous service with temporary status as on 29.11.1989, such casual labourers wood be treated at par with temporary group 'D' employees of the Department of Posts and would thereby be entitled to such benefits as are admissible to group 'D' employees on the regular basis, the said order further provides that the counting of service for the purpose of pension and terminal benefits as in the case of temporary employees appointed on regular basis, for those temporary employees who are given temporary status and who complete three years of service in that status while granting them pension and retirement benefits. 9. The Order issued in the month of December, 1992 clearly provides that the casual labourers after rendering three years of service as on 29.11.1989 would be treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees of the department and would be entitled to such benefits as are admissible to Group 'D' employees on regular basis. The casual labourers shall be treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees with effect from the date they complete three years of service in the newly acquired temporary status. From that date they will be entitled to benefits admissible to temporary Group 'D' employees such as, counting of service for the purpose of pension and terminal benefits as in the case of temporary employees appointed on regular basis. The Order dated 12.04.1991 relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners has been clarified in the Order issued in the month of December, 1992. The husband of respondent no.2 has served more than three years from 29.11.1989 and as such the respondent no.2 is entitled to get the pensionary benefits. Therefore, we find force in the contention of the learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent no.2. The Tribunal was justified in holding that that the husband of respondent no.2 was entitled to get the pensionary benefits. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) Dated 18.02.2008 LSR