Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna

Uma Shankar Pd Sinha vs Postal on 3 September, 2024

1 OA No. /050/0070/2018

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA

O.A. No. 050/0070/2018

Reserved on: 27.08. 2024
Pronounced on:03.09.2024
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER [J]

Uma Shankar Prasad Sinha s/o Late Rajendra Prasad Sinha, at present
posted as Group-D at Postal Store Depot, Muzaffarpur.

.......... Applicant
-Versus-

Patna
1. The Union of India through the D.G. cum Secretary, Department of
Bench Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna-800001.
3. The Postmaster General, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur - 842002.
4. The Director of Postal Services, O/o the Post Master General, Northern
Region, Muzaffarpur-842002.
5. The Superintendent, Postal Store Depot, Muzaffarpur-842001.

........Respondents

For Applicant:- Shri Jayant Kumar Karn, Advocate.

For Respondents:- Smt. P.R. Lakshmi, Addl. CGSC

ORDER

PER:- AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER [JUDICIAL]

1. Heard learned counsel for parties through video conferencing mode.

PRAYER

2. By way of present Original Application filed under
Section 19
of

Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, applicant has sought the main relief (as

extracted from OA) as under:-

"A The respondent authorities be directed to allow Pension and
all other Pensionary benefits to applicant by issuing
necessary orders to this effect, in terms of Orders passed by

2 OA No. /050/0070/2018

this Hon'ble Tribunal upheld by Hon'ble Patna High Court,
as contained in Annexure A/11 series.

B) Any other relief/reliefs as the applicant is entitled and Your
Lordships may deem fit and proper in the ends of justice."

FACTS IN BRIEF

3. Briefly stated facts as adumbrated by applicant in the instant OA are that

applicant was duly recruited through employment exchange through test and

vide appointment order dated 24.01.1984 (Annexure A-1) engaged as Casual

Labour at Postal Store Depot, Muzaffarpur w.e.f. 26.06.1983. Subsequently,

applicant was enrolled as Muster Roll Mazdoor along with five other

employees vide order dated 24.01.1984 (Annexure A-2). Thereafter, applicant

Patna was conferred temporary status w.e.f. 01.01.1992 vide order dated 24.03.1992
Bench

issued by Superintendent PSD, Muzaffarpur of Post Offices Division.

4. Pursuant to Memo No. PSD/Vacancy Position/Group-D dated

01.11.2007 (Annexure A-3) issued by the respondents, applicant was

recommended for absorption in departmental cadre against the vacancy created

due to retirement/death of Group-D w.e.f. 01.11.2007 vide order dated

28.11.2007 (Annexure A-4) and appointed as Temporary Group-D and all

facilities of Group-D were extended to the applicant. Subsequently, applicant

was made permanent w.e.f. 01.11.2009 after completion of two years of

continuous satisfactory service vide order dated 24.11.2009 (Annexure A-5).

5. It was to dismay of the applicant that vide order dated 04.03.2011

applicant was ordered his relieving with immediate effect. Aggrieved, applicant

approached this Tribunal by way of OA No.148/2011, which was decided on

31.05.2013 along with other connected matters with the reinstatement as TS

Casual Worker prior to issue of order of relieving with same terms and

conditions. Consequent upon the aforesaid Tribunal's order, the respondents

circulated a Policy decision in pursuance to Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in

3 OA No. /050/0070/2018

Uma Devi's case wherein it has been stipulated that the Casual Labours having

worked for 10 years or more are to be regularized.

6. Applicant, being a low paid employee, approached the respondents

praying for regularization but of no help. Applicant's services were not

regularized despite being covered as per aforementioned policy decision and

finally he was issued order dated 24.04.2017 by the Superintendent, PSD,

Muzaffarpur permitting him to retire w.e.f. the afternoon on 30.04.2017. After

retirement, applicant is being denied his legitimate claim of pension and other

pensionary benefits.

Patna
Bench 7. Applicant has served the respondent department from 26.06.1983 till his

retirement on 30.04.2017 after rendering more than 33 years of service. He was

conferred Temporary Status of Group-D w.e.f. 01.01.1992 (Annexure A-2) and

after rendering 3 years service, his status became to be at par with Temporary

Group-D employee. Due to lapse on the part of the respondents, applicant's

services were not regularized despite categorical policy decision issued by

Department and now after retirement, applicant is being denied his pension all

other pensionary benefits in an illegal manner. Resultantly, applicant has been

left to starve along with his dependents.

8. Per contra, opposing the claim of the applicant, respondents have filed

written statement and stated that applicant could not be regularized due to being

junior to other TS Casual Labours. It is further stated that claim of the applicant

for pensionary and retirement gratuity under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is not

justifiable on the premise of Clarification No.1 to 8 to OM dated 10.09.1983

regarding grant of temporary status and regularization of casual labours,

clarifies that even after conferment of temporary status, these workers continue

to be Casual Labours. It is also stated that in view of various decisions of

4 OA No. /050/0070/2018

Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue on hand, retirement benefits are granted to

employees having temporary status only after their regularization. Hence,

provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 are not applicable to the present OA.

9. The sum and substance of case of applicant is that the applicant duly

recruited employee through employment exchange, faced written exam for

recruitment. Appointed in due manner as per Constitutional Scheme for

appointment as Casual Labour/Mazdoor in Postal Store Depot, w.e.f.

26.06.1983 vide Office Order dated 24.01.1984 (Annexure A-1). Granted

Temporary Status w.e.f. 01.01.1992 vide Order dated 24.03.1992 (Annexure A-

Patna 2). Respondents recommended and absorbed against vacant post vide Order
Bench

dated 01.11.2007 (Annexure A-3 & A-4) and confirmation and made permanent

vide Order dated 24.11.2009 (Annexure A-5) w.e.f. 01.11.2009. The

respondents cancelled Order of regularization as well as permanent

appointment vide Order dated 18.02.2011 (Annexure A-6). The applicant

approached this Tribunal in OA No.148/2011 decided vide common Order

dated 31.05.2013 (Annexure A-7). This Tribunal directed continuance of

service as temporary status casual labour and directed to consider applicant

for regularization. Respondents kept case of applicant pending in temporary

employee of Group 'D' with T.S. status till 30.04.2017, date of retirement.

Applicant worked for more than 33 years from 1983 till 30.04.2017 but neither

regularized nor granted pension under Rules, 1965. Whereas similarly placed

T.S. employees were regularized in identical case in OA No.900 of 2012 (CAT,

Patna) Kritnarain Singh decided on 18.02.2016 and upheld by Hon'ble High

Court, Patna in
CWJC No.10978 of 2017 Union of India & Ors. versus

Kritnarain Singh
decided on 04.09.2017 (Annexure A-11).
So also in identical

facts and legal issue in OA No.664 of 2015 (CAT-Patna) Smt. Ram Kali Devi

versus Union of India allowed vide order dated 23.03.2017 upheld in CWJC

5 OA No. /050/0070/2018

No.11435 of 2017 vide judgment dated 04.09.2017 by Hon'ble High Court,

Patna (Annexure A-11).

SUBMISSIONS

10. Shri J.K. Karn, learned counsel for applicant contended that:-

(i) Applicant was initially appointed as casual labour in year 1983
through due process of law, granted temporary status w.e.f.

01.01.1992 and on completion of three years from 01.01.1992 as
temporary employee, respondents declared at par with Group 'D'
regular employee w.e.f. 01.01.1995 and granted all benefits
admissible to regular Group 'D'. Regularized on 01.11.2007 and
made permanent on 24.11.2009 but cancelled orders dated
01.11.2007 and 24.11.2009 (Annexure A-5) vide Order dated
Patna
Bench
18.02.2011 (Annexure A-6). The applicant retired as Temporary
Status on 30.04.2017.

(ii) Applicant retired on 30.04.2017, lapses on part of respondents not
regularized in last 33 years of continuous services.

(iii) Applicant cannot be made to suffer on lapses on part of
respondents not issued order of regularization. Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of
Rekha Mukherjee vs. Ashish Kumar Das
,
(2005) 3 SCC 427 held that "Government cannot be permitted to
take advantage of its own wrong".

So also in case of
R.S. Mathur
vs. Union of India
(2008) 10 SCC 271, wherein it has held that
"delay in appointments ought not causes disadvantages to the
employee in any manner.

(iv) Applicant after grant of temporary status on 01.01.1992, worked
for three years and as per scheme, related to casual labour (Grant
of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, Para 5 of the
scheme, entitled for such benefits as are admissible to Group 'D'
employee on regular basis. So also as per scheme dated
12.04.1991 of Govt. of India, treated at par with temporary Group
'D' employees w.e.f. date they complete three years service in
newly acquired temporary status and entitled for benefits to
temporary Group 'D' employees.

(v) Applicant working as temporary status at par with temporary
Group 'D' employee as per scheme of Govt. of India and entitled

6 OA No. /050/0070/2018

for pension as per Rule 10 of Central Civil Services
(Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 (in short Rules 1965),
applicant became legally entitled for superannuation pension.
Hon'ble High Court, Patna in case of
UOI vs. Meena Devi @
Meena Kunwar
in CWJC No. 7760 of 2015 decided on
08.12.2015, 2023 (1) PLJR 506 has upheld order of this Tribunal.

So also exactly in identical facts and legal issue, this Tribunal in
OA No.050/00145/2019 Shiv Chandra Sah versus Union of
India & Ors., vide order dated 21.02.2022 (Annexure A-7)
directed the respondents to grant pension on retirement
considering 50% of T.S. period as qualifying service for issue of
PPO and other retirement benefits. The Hon'ble High Court,
Patna in CWJC No.14115/2013 Union of India vs. Shiv
Patna
Bench Chandra Sah, upheld order dated 21.02.2022, in OA
No.145/2019 of this Tribunal, vide judgment dated 22.08.2024.
The issue is no more re-integra.

(vi) Applicant is entitled for pension and other benefits in light of
Rules 1965 and also read with, explanation (6) provided,
appended to Rule 2, applicability Clause of the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 2021 to the extent these rule shall also apply to the case of
government servants appointed in temporary capacity who retired
before appointed in a substantive capacity, the benefits under
these rules shall be payable to Govt. servant to extent provided in
Rules, 1965.

(vii) Applicant is also covered by Schemes, Rules 1965 and read with
CCS (Pension) Rules and entitled for pension and retiral
benefits.

(viii) Applicant is entitled for reckoning, his services for purposes of
pension as held by this Tribunal in case Mojib Ansari versus
Union of India, OA No. 265/2021 decided on 29.05.2023 and in
para-materia provision in case of
Union of India vs. Rakesh
Kumar
(2017) 13 SCC 388 by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(ix) Applicant cannot be made to suffer merely stating that applicant
was neither regularized nor willing to join on promotion. Hon'ble
High Court, Patna in case of
U.O.I. & Ors. Vs. Ratneshwar
Singh
in CWJC No. 13117 of 2019, vide judgment dated

7 OA No. /050/0070/2018

03.07.2019 held that offer made by respondents employer to
applicant to promote him and then treat as regularized was not
accepted by applicant for personal reason, but cannot construe to
mean that he had declined regularization on post he was
occupying and upheld order of this Tribunal.

11. Shri H.P. Singh, learned Senior C.G.S.C. appearing for respondents
submitted that :

(i) Applicant engaged as Casual labour w.e.f. 26.06.1983 and
continued with Temporary Status w.e.f. 01.01.1992 but never
regularized cannot be given pension.

(ii) Applicant was regularized but regularization cancelled as there
was no vacant post.

Patna
Bench

(iii) Applicant is not entitled to reckon qualifying services for
pensionary purposes being at par with Group 'D' employee and
not entitled under CCS (Pension) Rules and Rules 1965 for
temporary employees for grant of pension.

THE ISSUE

12. From the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and
material placed on record. The admitted fact that applicant joined services as
casual labour in year 1983. Thereafter conferred temporary status w.e.f.
01.01.1992 rendering continuous long, efficient service all his active life till
retired on 30.04.2017. The core issue arises before this Tribunal for
determination is:-

"Whether applicant who was appointed through process as a casual
lobourer and thereafter conferred the status of temporary employee w.e.f.
01.01.1992 and retired on 30.04.2017 is entitled to benefit of pension or
not?"

ANALYSIS

13. Before dealing with the rival contentions advanced at the Bar. It is
apposite to quote relevant portion of language of the statutory scheme, policy of
Union of India Ministry of Communications & I.T., Department of Posts, The
Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, the Central Civil
Services (Pension) Rules 2021, judgment binding precedents in similar cases,
in cases of pari-materia provisions passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble
High Courts, our own Hon'ble High Court Patna and Benches of the Central
Administrative Tribunal as under:-.

8 OA No. /050/0070/2018

RULE OF LAW
(A)(i) The casual labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization
Scheme issued by Department of Posts, Govt. of India dated 12.04.1991 drawn in
compliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court directions and approved by his Excellency
President of India relevant portion is reproduced as under for appreciation of the
Core issue involved in the present OA:-

Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation)
Scheme : In compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court a scheme was drawn up by this Department in consultation with the
Ministries of Law, Finance and Personnel and the President has been
pleased to approve the said scheme. The scheme is as follows :-

1. Temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers in
employment as on 29.11.1969 and who continue to be currently
employed and have rendered continuous service of at least one
year during the year during the year they must have been engaged
for a period of 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing
five days week).

2. Such casual workers engaged for full working hours viz 8 hours
including ½ hour's lunch time will be paid at daily rate on the
basis of the minimum of the pay scale for a regular Group 'D'
official including DA, HRA with CCA.

3. Benefit of increment at the same rate as applicable to a Group 'D'
Patna
Bench employee would be taken into account for calculating per month
rate wages 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 (206 days in
establishments observing five days week) in the year.

4. Leave entitlement will be one day for every 10 days' of work
Casual leave or any other kind of leave except maternity leave,
will not be admissible. No encashment of leave is permissible on
termination of services for any reason or on the casual labourers
quitting service.

5. Maternity leave to lady full time casual lanbourers will be
allowed as admissible to regular Group 'D' employees.

6. 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.

7. Conferment of Temporary Status does not automatically imply
that the casual labourers would be appointed as a regular Group
'D' employees within any fixed time frame. Appointment in
Group 'D' vacancies will continue to be done as per the extant
Recruitment Rules, which stipulate preference to eligible ED
employee.

8. After rendering three years' continuous service after
conferment of temporary status the casual labourers would be
treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees for the
purposes of contribution to General Provident Fund. They
would also further be eligible for the grant of Festival
Advance, Flood Advance on the same conditions as are
applicable to temporary Group 'D' employee provided they
furnish two sureties from permanent Government servants of
this Department.

9. Their entitlement to Productivity Linked Bonus will continue to
be at the rate applicable to casual labourers.

10. Temporary status does not debar dispensing with the service of
the casual labourers after following the due procedure.

11. If a labourer with temporary status commits a misconduct and the
same is proved in an enquiry after giving him reasonable
opportunity his services will be dispensed with.

12. Casual labourers may be regularized in units other than recruiting
units also subject to availability of vacancies.

9 OA No. /050/0070/2018

13. For purpose of appointment as a regular Group 'd' official the
casual labourers will be allowed age relaxation to the extent of
service rendered by them as casual labourers.

14. The casual labourers can be deployed any where within the
recruitment unit /territorial circle on the basis of availability of
work.

15. The engagement of the casual labourers will continue to be on
daily rates of pay on need basis.

16. The conferment of temporary status has no relation to availability
of sanctioned regular Group 'D' posts.

17. No recruitment from open market for Group 'D' posts except
compassionate appointment will be done till casual labourers
with the requisite qualification are available to fill up the posts in
question.

Further action may be taken in regard to the casual labourers by each unit
as per the above said scheme. This issues with the approval of Ministry of Finance
and concurrence of Integrated finance vide their Dy No. 1282 FM/91 dated
10.4.1991.

[G.I. Dept of Posts.Lr. No.45-95/87-SPB.I, dated 12th April,1991]
[Emphasis Supplied]

(ii) The relevant portion of the clarifications issued by Department of Posts,
Patna Govt. of India related to the Department of Posts Scheme dated
Bench 12.04.1991 also reproduced as under-

Clarification -1
Further to Letter No. 45-95/87-SPB-I dated 12.4.1991 (Order 2 above ) it
is hereby clarified that the scheme is effective from 20.11.1989 and hence
the eligible casual labourers may be conferred temporary status and the
benefits indicated in the above said circular with effect from 29.11.1999,
Clarification -4

1. Service Book of the casual labourers conferred with temporary status is
required to be maintained as in the case of temporary Government
employees.

2. Temporary status casual labourers are entitled to increment on par with
the departmental officials on completion of one year of engaement for
240 days i.e the increment would be taken into account for calculation of
wages with effect from 1.11.1990 for the casual labourers coferred with
temporary status on 29.11.1989, if they have completed one year of
service at least 240 days.

[G.I. DEPTT. OF POSTS, LR No. 45-56/92, dated the 1st March, 1993]

(iii) Benefits to casual labourers on completion of three years' service, In
temporary status. In their judgment, dated 29-11-1989, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court have held that after rendering three years of continuous service with
temporary status, the casual labourers shall 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 regular basis.

2. In compliance with the above-said directive of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it
has been decided that the casual labourers of this department conferred with
temporary status as per the scheme circulated in the above-said circular No. 45-
95/87-SPB. I, dated 12-4-1991, 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 as per the above-said scheme. From that date,
they will be entitled to benefits admissible to temporary Group 'D' employees
such as-

(1) All kinds of leave admissible to temporary employees;
(2) Holidays as admissible to regular employees;

(3) 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 after their regularization;

10 OA No. /050/0070/2018

(4) Central Government Employees' Insurance Scheme;
(5) General Provident Fund;

(6) Medical Aid;

(7) Leave Travel Concession;

(8) All advances admissible to temporary Group 'D' employees;
(9) Bonus.

3. Further action may be taken accordingly and proper service record of
such employees may also be maintained.

[G.I. Dept. of Posts, Lr No.66-9-91-SPB, I, dated the 30th November, 1992]
[Emphasis Supplied]
(B) The extract of the relevant portion of the Central Civil Services
(Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 framed in exercise of the powers conferred
by the proviso to
Article 309
of the Constitution of India by President to regulate
the conditions of service of temporary Government Servants reproduced as under:-

10. Terminal gratuity payable to temporary Government servants
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (1-B), a temporary
Government servant who retires on superannuation or is discharged
from service or is declared invalid for further service shall be eligible
Patna for gratuity on the same scale as admissible to a permanent
Bench
Government servant under the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules,
1972."

(1-A) In the case of a temporary Government servant who is
compulsorily retired from service as a disciplinary measure, the
provisions of sub-rule (1) shall apply subject to the modification that the
rate of gratuity payable in his case shall not be less than two-thirds of, but
in no case exceeding, the rate specified in sub-rule (1).
(1-B) In the case of a temporary Government servant who retires
from service on attaining the age of superannuation or on his being
declared to be permanently incapacitated for further Government
service by the appropriate medical authority, after he has rendered
temporary service of not less than 10 years or who has sought
voluntary retirement by giving three months notice in writing on
completion of 20 years service, provisions of sub-rule (1) shall not
apply and in accordance with the provisions of the Central Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1972:-

(i) such a Government servant shall be eligible for the
grant of superannuation, invalid or retiring pension, as the
case may be, and retirement gratuity; and

(ii) in the event of his death after retirement, the
members of his family shall be eligible for the grant of family
pension.

Death Gratuity
(2) In the even of death of a temporary Govt servant while in service, his family
shall be eligible for family pension and death gratuity at the same scale and
under the same provisions as are applicable to permanent Central Civilian
Government Servants under the Central Civil Services (Pesnion Rules, 1972.
(C) The Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972 Now consequent of seventh
Central Pay Commission old rules 1972 reviewed notifying CCS (Pension) Rules,
2021 and enforced since 20.12.2021. The Rule 87 Repeal and Saving Clause provides
any action taken under old rule shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the

11 OA No. /050/0070/2018

corresponding provisions of these rules i.e. Rules 2021 relevant to decide the issue are
extracted as under:-

1. Short title and commencement. (1) These rules may be called the Central
Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021.

(2) They shall come into force with effect from the date of their publication in
the Official Gazette.

2. Application- . Save as otherwise provided in these rules, these rules shall
apply to the Government servants appointed on or before 31st day of December,
2003, including civilian Government servants in the Defence Services, appointed
substantively to civil services and posts in connection with the affairs of the
Union which are borne on pensionable establishments, but shall not apply to,

(a) railway servants;

(b) persons in casual and daily rated employment;

(c) persons paid from contingencies;

(d) persons entitled to the benefit of a Contributory Provident Fund;

(e) members of the All India Services;

(f) persons locally recruited for service in diplomatic, consular or other
Indian establishments in foreign countries;

(g) persons employed on contract except when the contract provides
otherwise; and

(h) persons whose terms and conditions of service are regulated by or
under the provisions of the Constitution or any other law for the
Patna time being in force. Explanation.- These rules shall also apply to:-

Bench
(6) the case of Government servants appointed in temporary
capacity to civil services and posts in connection with the affairs
of the Union on or before 31st day of December, 2003, who
retired or were retired before having been appointed in a
substantive capacity, the benefits under these rules shall be
payable to the Government servant to the extent provided in the
Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

50. Family Pension.- (1) Where a Government servant dies:-

(i) after completion of one year of continuous service; or (ii) before
completion of one year of continuous service, provided the
deceased Government servant concerned immediately prior to his
appointment to the service or post was examined by the appropriate
medical authority and declared fit by that authority for Government
service; or

(iii) after retirement from service and was on the date of death in
receipt of a pension, or compassionate allowance, referred to in
these rules, the family of the deceased shall be entitled to a family
pension from the date following the date of death of the
Government servant or the retired Government servant, as the case
may be.

Explanation - Continuous service means service rendered in a
temporary or permanent capacity in a permissible establishment
and does not include period of suspension, if any and period of
service, if any, rendered before attaining the age of eighteen years.

[Emphasis Supplied]
CASE - LAW

14. Before examining the core issue framed. This Tribunal would first deal
with binding precedent some of the various judgments settled the law on the
similar facts and the issue involved not been referred to higher bench. So also
judgments dealing with pari-materia provisions related to same category of
employees as under:-

(i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreting the scheme and policies as
applicable in present O.A. of Department of Post in three judge Bench

12 OA No. /050/0070/2018

decision in case of Jagrit Mazdoor Union and ors. versus Mahanagar
Telephone Nigam Ltd. And ors in W.P. No. 1119, 1276, 1623 and 1624
of 1986 decided on 29.11.1989 reported in 1990 Supp SCC 113 has
observed :-

"writ petitioner in W.P. No. 1624/1986 working as substitute
employees and casual labourers in the Department of Posts, Govt. of
India claimed relief to treat at par with regular employees and be paid
same emoluments as regular employees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Para 11 directed as under:-

" 11 The Temporary Status would be available to the casual
labourers in the Postal Department on completion of one year
continuous service with at least 240 days of work (2036 days
in the case of officers observing five days week) and on
conferment of temporary status, House Rent Allowance and
City Compensatory Allowance shall be admissible. There
would be no justification to withhold Maternity Leave as that
is an obligation of the employer under the law and the state as
an ideal employer fulfilling the Directive Principles of State
Policy envisaged in Part-IV of the Constitution should
provide the same. After rendering three years of continuous
service with temporary status, the casual labouers shall be
treated at par with temporary Grade 'D' employees of the
Patna
Department of Posts and would thereby be entitled to such
Bench benefits as are admissible to Group "D" employees on regular
basis."

[Emphasis supplied]

(ii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court, three Judge Bench in case of Yashwant
Hari Katakkar Versus Union of India reported in (1996) 7 SCC 113,
dealing with question for determination "whether appellant is entitled to
any pensionary benefits since total service of more than eighteen years
was in quasi-permanent/temporary." The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held:-

"3. Dr. Anand Prakash, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the union of India, has contended that on 7.3.1980 when the
appellant was prematurely retired he had put in 18 ½ years of
quasi-permanent service. According to him to earn pension it was
necessary to have a minimum of 120 years of permanent service.
It is contended that since the total service of the appellant was
in quasi-permanent capacity he was not enlisted to the pensionary
benefits.

There is nothing on record to show as to why the appellant was
not made permanent even when he had served the Government for
18 ½ years. It would be travesty of justice if the appellant is denied
the pensionary benefits simply on the ground that he was not a
permanent employee of the government. The appellant having
served the government for almost-two decades it would be unfair to
treat him as temporary/quasi-permanent.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case we
hold that the appellant shall be deemed to have become permanent
after he served the Government for such a long period. The services
of the appellant shall be treated to be in permanent capacity and he
shall be entitled to the pensionary benefits. We allow the appeal, set
aside the judgment of the Tribunal and direct the respondents to
treat the appellant as having been retired from service on 7.3.1980
after serving the Government for 18 ½ years More than 10 years of
permanent service) and as such his case for grant of pension be
finalized within six months from the receipt of this order. The
appellant shall be entitled to all the arrears of pension from the date
of retirement.

[Emphasis Supplied]

(iii) The Hon'ble High Court Patna dealing with identical facts
and issue in case of Union of India & Ors Versus Kritnarain Singh,
CWJC No. 10978 of 2017 decided on 04.9.2017. Their Lordships was

13 OA No. /050/0070/2018

seisin with similar issue as decided by Central Administrative Tribunal
Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 900 of 2012 vide order dated 18.2.2016 The
Union of India- Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts taken
plea as before Tribunal that services of private respondents Temporary
Status Casual Labour, was never regularized nor worked on a regular
group 'D' post till his retirement. Therefore he is not entitled to pensioner
benefits. Their Lordships in case of
Kritnarain Singh
(supra) affirmed
view taken by this Tribunal in OA No. 900/2012 based on Hon'ble High
Court Patna judgement dated 15.12.2015 in CWJC No. 17204/2015. So
also their Lordships observed that Tribunal has taken correct view
because in similar and identical circumstances the High Court held in
favour of an employee and that judgment stands and holds the field and
writ application dismissed.

[Emphasis supplied]

(iv) The Hon'ble High Court Patna dealing with identical case in
facts and legal issue in case of
Union of India versus Smt Ram Kali
Devi, CWJC No.
11435 of 2017 decided on 11.9.2017. Their Lordships
were seisin with similar issue as involved in the present case. The Union
of India, Department of Posts had challenged order dated 22.3.2017
passed in O.A. No. 664/2015 (Patna) by this Tribunal to pay family
Patna
Bench
pension, retiral dues to widow of deceased employee.

Their Lordships observed that husband of petitioner granted
temporary status at par with Group 'D' as far as on 29/30.11.1992 and he
died in harness on 17.4.2015 i.e. after completion of more than 25 years
of service. The fact that 50% of the period even in temporary status begets
the benefits of pension. Failure on part of postal department not to
regularize services of husband of private respondents cannot be
appreciated. Their Lordships decided in favour of temporary status
employee at par with Group 'D' employee and upheld order dated
22.3.2017 in similar OA No. 664/2015 (Patna). So also observed that in
similar and identical cases adjudicated in favour of employees in OA No.
113/2006 decided on 21.9.2006, affirmed by Patna High Court vide order
dated 7.11.2007 in CWJC No. 4475/2007 and order of the High Court
Patna has been affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court on 4.12.2009. So also
similar cases travelled from O.A. No. 900/2012 (CAT Patna) in CWJC
No. 10978 of 2017 and Division Bench vide order dated 4.9.2017 had
upheld directions by this Tribunal extending benefits of pension as
employee was granted temporary status at par with Group 'D' employee.

[Emphasis supplied]

(v) The Hon'ble High Court Patna dealing with similar legal core
issue as involved in the present case interpreted rules applicable in
the present OA in hand.
In the case of
Union of India and others
versus Meena Devi @ Meena Kunwar, CWJC No.
7760 of 2015
decided on 8.12.2022 reported in 2023 (1) PLJR 506 by their
Lordships affirming order dated 28.3.2013 passed in O.A 164/2008
(Patna). The Tribunal has granted family pension and other pensionary
benefits to widow of deceased employee died as temporary employee
without being regularized.

Their Lordships dealing with the identical issue "whether deceased
employee who was appointed as a casual labourer and thereafter stepped
into the status of temporary employee w.e.f. 23.10.1992 and died in
harness on 15.11.2007 and his legal heirs is entitled to benefit of
pension/family pension or not ?"

So also held that sub-clause (3) of clause (2) of Para 5 of Casual
Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme is

14 OA No. /050/0070/2018

crystal clear that temporary employees is entitled to pension and
retirement benefits, if he has completed three years of service in the
temporary status followed by regularization. Their Lordships further
observed that if temporary employee died in harness his Legal heirs are
entitled to family pension in light of Rule 10(2) of Temporary Service
Rules i.e Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 read
with CCS Pension Rules 1972 and temporary rules is a social legislation
beneficial legislation to a beneficiary is required to be extended with
reference to various judicial pronouncements on the principle of
beneficial legislation and affirmed order dated 20.3.2013 in OA No. 164
of 2008 (CAT, Patna) rejecting CWJC No. 7760/2015 of Department of
Posts. Their Lordships also directed as under :-

"10. Respondent is a legal heir and she is awaiting for certain monetary
benefits for more than decade, therefore, the petitioner department is hereby
directed to calculate monetary benefits in the light of sub-rule (2) of Rule 10
of Rules 1965 and same shall be extended to the respondent within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of this order, alongwith interest at the
rate of 8% p.a. from 1.3.2008 in the light of the fact that respondent's husband
died on 15.11.1997 and in the light of Apex Court's decision in the case of
Vijay L. Mehrotra versus State of U.P., (2001) 9 SCC 687."

[Emphasis supplied]

(vi) The Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in
Patna CWP No. 2299 of 2014, The Sr. Superintendent of Posts offices versus
Bench Shri Painu Ram decided on 23.7.2018, dealing with identical issue on
facts and legal points and law as involved in present O.A "whether a part
timer, who was conferred temporary status was entitled for same benefits,
as are admissible to reglar employees in terms of instructions dated
12.4.1991 as amended on 30.11.1992 issued by respondent department
post or not ?"

The writ petition was directed against order dated 31.1.2014
passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in
OA No. 426/HP/2013 Painu Ram Vs Union of India & ors granting
relief in favour of original applicant therein, The Hon'ble High Court
considered Department of Post Government of India Plicy dated
30.11.1992 relied by the learned Tribunal and judgement of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in
Jagritti Mazdoor Union (Regd
) (supra) and held that
after the conferment of the temporary status upon the present respondent,
he was entitled for benefits which are accrueable to a regular Group 'D'
employee after completion of three years of service on temporary basis.
So also considered judgements of various Benches of learned Tribunal
and upheld the order dated 31.1.2014 in O.A. No. 426/HP/2013
(Chandigarh).

(vii) Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
in case of
Mrs. Alka Sharma versus Union of India
, 2017 (2) SCT 739
(P&H) (DB) dealing with the issue in the case of widow of the railway
employee in pari materia provision of family pension "whether widow of
temporary employee not been subsequently appointed on substantive post
could be granted pension and family pension under Railway Services
(Pension) Rules as for no fault of deceased employee on lapses on
railways could not be considered for regularization". The Hon'ble High
Court considered the fact that employee himself was not at fault for such
lack of regularization, never called for regularization purposes. The
Hon'ble High Court considered relevant Rules 75, governing Family
Pension Scheme for railway servants, 1964 and factum that deceased
employee was otherwise not regularized inspite of 14 years in temporary
capacity and at time of the death was still working as temporary
employee.

The Hon'ble High Court directed the respondents to grant of
family pension and other retiral benefits of the deceased employee by
notionally treating his services as regularized, arrears to pension only for
a period of three years preceding the date of filing O.A.

15 OA No. /050/0070/2018

15. In the other similar and identical situation, The Central Administrative
Tribunal also adjudicated cases and decided in favour of original applicants
on similar facts and legal issue as involved in the present OA in hand and
some of them are cited as under:-

(a)(i) The Division Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 050/00143/2018

Awadhesh Prasad Singh versus The Union of India & ors
decided on
28.10.2021. The said O.A. was filed by Night Guard working in Department of
Posts seeking pension and other pensionary benefits in terms of Rule 10, CCS
(TS) Rules 1965 read with GID (3) below Rule 2 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

The learned Tribunal observed that as per judgement by The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Uma Devi's case, Department of Posts has circulated policy in June/July
2014 for regularization of casual labours having worked for ten years or more and
vide judgement dated 13.11.2017 Hon'ble High Court Patna in CWJC No.
12126/2017 directed to consider in light of the policy. The applicant Awadhesh
Prasad Singh was engaged as Jeep Driver on 13.1.1984 on daily wages, conferred
temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989 and retired on October, 2019 after 35 years of
total service as temporary status and not been regularized.

The Division bench of this Tribunal considering impact of clause 5 of
Patna Government of India, Department of Posts letter No. 66-9/91-SPB. I dated 30th
Bench November, 1992- benefits to a casual labour on completion of three years service
in Temporary status become entitled to 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 regular basis such as
counting of service for purposes of pension and terminal benefits as in the case of
temporary employees appointed on regular basis while granting them pension and
retirement benefits after the regularization. The learned Tribunal in Para 17 of
order relied on larger bench decision dated 2.9.2019 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of
Prem Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others
reported in
(2019) 10 SCC 516 reads as under :-

"35. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in
spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years whereas
they have been superannuated. As they have worked in work-charged
establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to
have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per
the decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma
Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1. This Court in the said decision has laid down that
in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the
cover of the Court's order, as one time measure, the services be
regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees
who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It
would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularisation
as others have been regularised, we direct that their services be treated as
a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to
claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in
service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be
entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular
establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they
entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying
service for purpose of pension.

36. In view of reading down Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement
Benefits Rules, 1961, we hold that services rendered in the work-charged
establishment shall be treated as qualifying service under the aforesaid
rule for grant of pension. The arrears of pension shall be confined to three
years only before the date of the order. Let the admissible benefits be paid
accordingly within three months. Resultantly, the appeals filed by the
employees are allowed and filed by the State are dismissed."

[Emphasis Supplied]

16 OA No. /050/0070/2018

(ii) Hon'ble High Court, Patna in CWJC No.128 of 2024 in

Union of India & Ors. vs. Awadhesh Prasad Singh
(arising out of order
dated 02.08.2021 in
OA No.050/00143/2018 Awadhesh Prasad Singh vs.
Union of India & Ors.
). Their Lordships vide order dated 08.04.2024,
heard the matter at length and observed that no prima facie case made out.
Thereafter vide order dated 20.06.2024 upheld order dated 28.10.2021 in
OA No.143 of 2018. The present OA on hand also no different.

(b) In the similar and identical situation the learned Coordinate Bench
Chandigarh of the Tribunal recently in October 2023 adjudicated in OA No.
060/690/2019 (Chandigarh) Santosh Kumar versus Union of India & ors
allowed OA directing to grant family pension and other retiral benefits of the
deceased employee. The learned Tribunal dealt issue "whether the person
who has not been regularized by the respondents the provision of Rule 54 (2)
of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 is attracted or not ? The learned Tribunal
has considered the matter and examined in detail Rule 54 (2) of CCS Pension
Rules, 1972 and observed that provisions are pari materia to Rule 75- Family
Pension Scheme for Railway servants, 1954.
So also held that case is covered
by judgement in case of
Alka Sharma vs Union of India & ors
2017 (2)
SCT (P&H) (DB) passed by Hon'ble High Court Punjab & Haryana.

So also
case of
Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices and ors vs Painu Ram
in CWP.

No.22990/2014 decided on 23.7.2018 by Hon'ble High Court of Himachal
Patna Pradesh and reliance has also been placed upon judgement passed by Hon'ble
Bench Supreme Court in case of
Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd) and others vs
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd & anr
etc, 1990 supp. SC 113.

So also
observed that case is fully covered by judgement of Hon'ble High Court of
Himachal Pradesh in matter of
Union of India vs Meena Devi
in CWP No.
34 of 2014 decided on 23.7.2018.

16. In present case this Tribunal is dealing with the issue "applicant casual
labour of department of posts obtaining temporary status on 01.01.1992
accordance with the scheme not regularized retired on 30.04.2017 is entitled to
pension and pensionary benefits."

17. Admittedly, applicant was initially engaged as Casual Labourer in year
1983 retired on 30.04.2017. The department of posts vide instruction dated
17.5.1989 clarified that all daily wagers working in post offices are to be treated
as casual labourers. The department of posts has made Scheme known as
Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization)
Scheme effective from 01.10.1989. The scheme provided provisions for
conferment of temporary status to casual labourers. So also the scheme
specified advantages at part with Group 'D' regular employee available on
conferment of status of temporary employee.

18. The casual labourers in the Department of Posts filed writ petition
before Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Jagrit MazdoorUnion and ors
versus Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
1990 Supp. SCC 113 seeking
relief that substitutes and casual labourers of Department of Posts be paid same
emoluments as regular employees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that

17 OA No. /050/0070/2018

temporary status would be available to the casual labourers in the postal
department on completion of one year of continuous service with at least 240
days of work and on conferment of temporary status. The state as an ideal
employer fulfilling the Directive Principles of state policy should treat similarly
with regular employees in the department.

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, three Judge Bench in
Jagrit Mazdoor
Union
(supra) decided on 29.11.1989 also held as under:-

"After rendering three years of continuous service with temporary status, the
casual labourers shall be treated at part with temporary Grade 'D' employees of
the Department of Posts and would thereby be entitled to such benefits as are
admissible to Group 'D' employees on regular basis."

[Emphasis Supplied]

20.
In compliance with directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Jagrit Mazdoor Union
(supra). The Department of Posts, Government of
Patna
Bench
India formulated scheme known as Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary
Status and Regularization) Scheme dated 12th April, 1991 and scheme has been
drawn up by the Department in consultation with Ministry of Law, Finance and
Personnel and his Excellency the President of India has been graciously
pleased to approve with intention to provide benefits to casual labourers
working continuously for long period.

21. The Scheme dated 12.4.1991 having binding statutory force, social and
beneficial legislation to protect fructify the legislative intent to extend benefits
to long continuous working of casual labourers.

22. The Scheme dated 12.04.1991 confers temporary status on casual
labourers in employment as on 29.11.1989. The applicant is appointee of year
1983 admitted fact and has been requesting to regularize and ought to have
been regularized before 30.04.2017 accordance with law as regular employee
for no fault of applicant made to suffer violating
Article 14
, 21
, 31A
and
of
the Constitution of India.

23. The applicant has been conferred temporary status w.e.f. 01.01.1992
pursuant to order dated 24.03.1992 (Annexure A-2) and the statutory binding
scheme has conferred after 3 years certain advantages to temporary employee as
provided in para 2 as to grant of minimum of the pay scale for a regular
group'D' official including DA, HRA and CCA. Para 3 provides for benefits of
increment at the same rate as applicable to a Group 'D' employee after

18 OA No. /050/0070/2018

completion of one year of service from date of conferment of Temporary status.
The Fundamental Rule 27 stipulates grant of increment to a government
servant on same scale of pay. The legislative intent is clear as noon day in
formulating the statutory scheme dated 12.4.1991 and writ in the nature of
mandamus would certainly lie to enforce the terms as social legislation to
enhance social welfare and achieve social justice. The Central Government
being an ideal employer fulfilling the Directive Principles of State Policies
envisaged in the Part IV of the Constitution of India treating temporary status
casual labour after long period at par with temporary Group 'D' employee of
the Department granting benefits and treating at par with and entitled for such
benefits as are admissible to the Group 'D' employee on regular basis. The
scheme further provides for Leave Encashment, Maternity Leave as to regular
Group 'D' employee, 50% of service under temporary status for retirement
Patna
Bench benefits after regularization as a regular Group 'D' on absorption. So also the
scheme to be construed as social beneficial legislation with harmonious
construction. So also Para 8 of the scheme specifically provides for conferment
of temporary group 'D' status after rendering three years continuous service as
temporary status.

24. The applicant was conferred temporary status on 01.01.1982 and
accordance with Para 8 of the scheme and on principles of beneficial
construction and harmoniously construing the scheme. The applicant after three
years since 01.01.1992 meaning thereby since 01.01.1995 has attained status of
temporary Group 'D' employees and regularly contributed to G.P.F. The
applicant was in capacity of temporary employee. The applicant having
continuously worked as temporary status casual labourer since 26.06.1983 and
on 01.01.1995 is holder of post of temporary employee/quasi permanent status
and deserves to be dealt fairly by the model employer state accordance with
guarantee enshrined in the
Article 14
and
of the Constitution of India. This
Tribunal is of the view whereof that it is unfair to continue applicant such a
long in temporary post and without considering for regularizing till retirement.
Respondents regularized applicant in year 2007 but cancelled said order on
18.02.2011 as there was no vacancy but thereafter in 33 years could not
regularize.

25. The applicant acquired status of temporary employee Group 'D' of
Department of Posts and it is well settled in law that entitled for such benefits

19 OA No. /050/0070/2018

as are admissible to Group 'D' employees on regular basis. So also held by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jagrit Mazdoor Union
(supra).

26. The Para 17 of statutory scheme also provides in mandatory terms no
recruitment from open market for Group 'D' posts till casual labourers
available to fill up the posts in question. The respondents have not discharged
statutory duty as model employer as envisaged in D.P.S.P. Part IV of the
Constitution of India and applicant husband not regularized as for no fault
cannot be made to suffer. The official respondents did not discharge his duty
and not regularized on time for own mistakes respondents cannot take
advantages and plea not even considered for regularization available to them
that since no regularization no pension etc.

Patna

27. The applicant submitted representation dated 31.10.2017 and filed OA
Bench
No.148 of 2011 to allow to participate in absorption to regularize services on
regular cadre post but no response in spite of decision vide order dated
31.05.2013. The applicant could not be provided opportunity for regularization
as Group 'D' through selection in view of limited vacancies kept for selection
of casual labourers as contained in written statement and averments of OA that
respondents not regularized services of applicant. The applicant was never at
fault for such lack of regularization.

28. This Tribunal considering the specific averments made by applicant in
the O.A that respondents have not regularized services on regular post as per
law on time, in spite of written requests and retired on 30.04.2017 without
being regularized. This Tribunal is of the view since respondents state failed to
discharge his statutory duty as per the Scheme dated 12.4.1991 and not even
once considered for regularization since 1983. Hence respondents cannot take
advantage of own mistakes and latches to deny retirement benefits as not
regularized deceased employee before retirement. The matter of right, right
accrued pursuant to the scheme and policy applicable to applicant and he ought
to have at least considered for regularization before date of superannuation. The
applicant worked since 1983 till 30.04.2017 almost more than thirty three (33)
years in the department.

29. The department of posts issued clarifications some of reproduced herein
above enumerating advantages of temporary employee. So also policy dated

20 OA No. /050/0070/2018

30.11.1992 Government of India, Department of Posts G.I. (5). Benefits of
casual labourers on completion of three years service in temporary status
reproduced herein above. The vested legal right accrued to the employee in
light of statutory scheme and policies and can not be taken away by
respondents. The Department of Posts, Ministry of Telecommunication & I.T.
Union of India formulated policy dated 12.4.1991, 30.11.1992 and failure of
implementation results in failure of social-economic justice. So also envisaged
in D.P.S.P. Part IV of Constitution. These policy, scheme circulars are
substantive attempts to enhance social welfare. The respondents denied to
employee accrued rights and has led to him and his family to a long and
tortuous roads to justice. Hence plea taken by respondents that unless
regularized no pensionry benefits deserves to be rejected and applicant can not
be denied relief claimed.

Patna
Bench

30. The sub-clause 2 of clause 5 of G.I.D (5) policy dated 30.11.1992
quoted herein above is also crystal clear that casual labourers of the postal
department with effect from date of completion three years of service in newly
acquired temporary status becomes entitled to benefits admissible to temporary
Group 'D' employee such as counting of service for purpose of pension and
terminal benefits as in case of temporary employees appointed on regular basis
while granting them pension and retirement benefits after their regularization.

31. The Conditions of Service of temporary government servants are
regulated by Rules 1965 relevant rules already extracted herein above. The
Rule 10 (2) of Rules 1965 provides for grant of family pension and death
gratuity to family of deceased temporary employee under same provisions as
are applicable to the permanent civilian government servants under the CCS
Pension Rules 1972 (Now CCS Pension Rules, 2021). The claim for pension
and benefits accrued accordance with Rule 10 of Rules 1965 read with Rules 2
CCS Pension Rules 2021. The Temporary employee retired without substantive
appointment are held entitled for pension etc as per Rules 1965 and Rules 2021.

32. The CCS Rules 1972 has been repealed CCS Pension Rules 2021 as
extracted herein above. So far as Rule 2 of Rules 2021 no where excludes
temporary employee and Rule 2 explanations (6) of CCS Pension Rules 2021
are applicable to those temporary employee like applicant. So also the
explanation no. 6 to Rule 2 provides - these rules shall also apply to (6) cases

21 OA No. /050/0070/2018

of government servants appointed in temporary capacity to civil services and
posts in connection with affairs of the Union on or before 31st December, 2003,
who retired or were retired before having been appointed in a substantive
capacity, the benefits under these rules shall be payable to the government
servant to the extent provided in the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service)
Rules, 1965. Thus applicant entitled to benefits as admissible to any other
public servant and respondents have violated fundamental right enshrined in

Article 14
and
of Constitution of India.

33. The G.I.D (5) Benefits to casual labourers on completion of three years
service in temporary status sub clause (3) of clause 2 of para 5 dated
30.11.1992 provides for entitlement to temporary employee to pension and
retirement benefits on his completion of three years service in temporary status
Patna
Bench
followed by regularization.

34. The applicant stood retired on 30.04.2017 as temporary employee for no
fault of own not regularized, respondents did not discharge his duties and no
rebuttal in reply to O.A. Whereas Rule 10 of Rules 1965 read with Rules 2021
and Policy dated 30.11.1992 provides for grant of pension, family pension and
retirement benefits to temporary employee. The status of employee was at par
with regular employee on long continuation on temporary post in welfare state.
The Scheme of statutory Rules 1965 read with Pension Rules 2021 would
prevail over any policy decision.

35. The explanation no. 6 to Rule 2of CCS Pension Rules 2021 makes it
clear that applicant who stood retired before having been appointed in a
substantive capacity as regular cadre employee for such type of category of
temporary employee benefit of pension Rules i.e Pension, retirement gratuity,
death gratuity and family pension shall be payable to applicant same scale as
admissible to permanent servant under CCS Pension Rules to the extent
provided in the CCS (TS) Rules 1965 as under:-

(i) On retirement from service on superannuation or invalidation
after having rendered continuous temporary/quasi permanent
service of not less than 10 years.

(ii) On seeking voluntary retirement after completion of 20 years of
continuous temporary service.

(iii) In event of death while in service.

36. This Tribunal has analyzed in details the relevant statutory schemes
clarifications, Policies, statutory Rules 1965 read with CCS Pension Rules 2021

22 OA No. /050/0070/2018

(erstwhile Rules 2017). This Tribunal considered the matter and in view of
whereof of the affirm view that Government of India, Department of Posts
instructions, scheme dated 12.4.1991 letter no. 66-9/91-SPB-I dated 30.11.1992
and Rules 1965 extracted herein above are social legislation when read
conjointly and harmoniously. The Rules 1965 and the Schemes beneficial
legislation makes it clear that temporary status in department of posts rendered
service not less than ten years in newly acquired temporary status becomes
entitled for regularization, pension and pensionery benefits. The failure on the
part of respondents to implement Rule 10 TS Rules 1965 read with Pension
Rules 2021 is failure of social justice and social legislation for casual labourers
the said legislation is substantive attempts to enhance social welfare and state
as an ideal employer fulfilling the Directive Principles of State Policy
envisaged in Part IV of the Constitution.

Patna
Bench

37. Thus respondents can not take advantages of their own wrong and lapses
and for no fault applicant can not be made to suffer and applicant entitled to
receive pension as if retired from regular establishment and so also held by
Hon'ble Supreme court in para 36 of judgement in case of
Prem Singh versus
State of U.P & Ors
(2019) 10 SCC 516 reproduced herein above.

38. The contention of the respondents that Hon'ble High Court, Patna in
case of
Union of India versus Bhikhani Devi CWJC No.
154 of 2019 decided
on 14.10.2019, their Lordships had set-asie order dated 27.3.2018 passed in
O.A. No. 372/2017 (
Bhikhani Devi Vs Union of India
) as Tribunal relied on
ratio in CWJC No. 11435/2017 and 10978/2017 and SLP dismissed against
same.

Their Lordships in case of
Bhikhani Devi
(supra) observed that
judgments relied by Tribunal in CWJC 11435/2017 and 10978/2017 and none
of them considered the impact of Circular dated 15.9.1991 of CPMG Bihar that
there is no automatic appointment from temporary status to regular Group 'D'
unless absorbed as per rules. So also Tribunal not adjudicated points unless an
employee is in regular service in cadre, pensionary benefits would not be
admissible.

39. The learned counsel for applicant in rebuttal submitted that the Division
Bench of Hon'ble High Court Patna in similar facts and legal issue dealt in
detail rules applicable in case of
Union of India and ors versus Meena Devi
@ Meena Kunwar CWJC No.
7760 of 2015 decided on 08.12.2022,

23 OA No. /050/0070/2018

reported in 2023 (1) PLJR 506 affirming order dated 20.3.2013 in similar OA
No. 164/2008 (Patna) and granted benefits of family pension arrears as per Rule
10 (2) of Rules 1965 and CCS Pension Rules 1972 widow of employee died as
temporary employee without being regularized.

This Tribunal has considered
the submissions of the counsel for the parties and in judgement in case of

Bhikhani Devi
(supra) previous cases not referred to the larger bench perused
the ratio
laid down by
their Lordships in case of
Meena Devi @ Meena
Kunwar
(supra) decided on 08.12.2022. Their Lordships considering scheme
for Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) and held
that husband of the applicant being temporary employee governed by CCS TS
Rules 1965 and as per Rule 10 of CCSTS Rule 1965 read with CCS Pension
Rule Their Lordships in Para 10 of judgement directed reads as under :-

"10. Respondent is a legal heir and she is awaiting for certain monetary
Patna benefits for more than decade, therefore to calculate monetary benefits
Bench in the light of sub-rule 2 of 10 of Rules 1965 and the same shall be
extended to the respondents within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of this order, alongwith interest at the rate of 8% p.a.
from 01.3.2008 in the light of the fact that respondents husband died on
15.11.1997 and in the light of Apex Court's decision in the case of Vijay
L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P. (2001)9 SCC 687."

[Emphasis Supplied]
Their Lordships in case of Meena Devi @ Meena Kunwar , reported in 2023
(1) PLJR 506 considered impact effect of scheme dated 30.11.1992 of Postal
Department and also considered Rule 10 of CCS TS Rules 1965 and
applicability of CCS Pension Rules. After considering the proposition of law
precedent/ratio decidendi has been laid down. This Tribunal is bound by the
precedent in
Meena Devi @ Meena Kunwar
(supra) principle of law laid
down interpreting service rules applicable in the case. The present case is also
covered by the above binding-ratio decedendi, precedent.

The preposition of
law as laid down considering relevant service rules in
Meena Devi @ Meena
Kunwar
(supra) by Hon'ble High Court Patna constitutes binding precedent
on this Tribunal and present case is also deserves same treatment.

40. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and legal
issue in hand in present case also qualified by precedents binding judicial
pronouncements cited herein above of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court
of Punjab & Himachal Pradesh and our own Hon'ble High Court Patna and
Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal and present case is no different. This
Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the case of applicant is a covered
matter on facts and legal issue involved in the present case and no more res-

24 OA No. /050/0070/2018

integra. The applicant is also entitled for the same treatment and consequential
benefits envisaged in the Fundamental Right under
Article 14

& 21
of
Constitution of India guaranteed to the applicant too.

41. In view whereof reading of sub- clause (3) of clause 2 of Para 5 of the
Scheme, dated 30.11.1992 reproduced herein above relating to benefit to casual
labourers on completion of three years service in temporary status of Casual
Labourers (Grant of temporary status and regularization) Scheme is crystal
clear that temporary employee is entitled to pension and retirement benefits, if
he has completed three years of service in temporary status followed by
regularization. The applicant granted temporary status w.e.f. 01.01.1992 and
not been regularized by respondents in spite of requests and for no fault stood
retired on 30.04.2017 and in year 2018 filed OA No.148 of 2011, this Tribunal
Patna
Bench
directed on 31.05.2013 to consider for regularization and present OA filed in
year 2018.

42. The condition of services of the Temporary Government servants are
regulated by the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules 1965. As
per Rule 10 of Rules 1965, legal right accrued for grant of pension, retirement
gratuity and in the event of death after retirement, members of his family shall
be eligible for the grant of family pension read with the provisions of Central
Civil Services (Pension) Rules 2021 (Erstwhile Rules 1972). The explanation
(6) provides appended to Rule 2 Applicability Clause of the CCS Pension
Rules 2021 to the extend these rules shall also apply to the case of government
servant appointed in temporary capacity who retired or were retired before been
appointed in a substantive capacity, the benefits under these rules shall be
payable to the government servant to the extent provide in the Central Civil
Services (Temporary Service ) Rules 1965.

43. The Rule 50-family Pension of CCS Pension Rules 2021 (Erstwhile Rule
54 (2) of CCS Pension Rules 1972) and pari materia provision in Rule 75 of
family pension scheme for Railway Segvants 1964. It is also submitted that
Rule for family pension no where provides that the individual is to be a regular
employee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Yashwant Hari Kakkar
(supra) has held that it would be travesty of justice if retiree denied pensionary
benefits simply on ground that he was not a permanent employee not
regularized after served for 18 ½ years.

25 OA No. /050/0070/2018

44.
In case of Rameshwari Devi versus Union of India, OA No.36 of
2021 (CAT Patna Bench) vide order dated 17.01.2022 in case of employee
with temporary status, placed reliance on judgment of
Yashwant Hari
Katakkar versus Union of India
, (1996) 7 SCC 113, order of Principal Bench
in OA No.1287 of 2000. This Tribunal held that applicant's husband served
continuously as Temporary Status Casual Labour for almost 22 years and not
been regularized for reasons best known to the employer.
In O.A. No.143 of
2018, (CAT Bench Patna) Awadhesh Prasad Singh versus Union of India &
Ors. related to temporary status employee not regularized, allowed OA
directing respondents to settle pension and all pensionary benefits treating his
superannuation. This Tribunal in case Rameshwari Devi (Supra) vide order
dated 17.01.2022 directed respondents to process for issuance of Pension
Payment Order. Order dated 17.01.2022 in OA No.36/2021, Rameshwari Devi
Patna
Bench case was challenged in CWJC No.7859 of 2022 and Hon'ble High Court,
Patna, their Lordships on all arrears amount directed to pay interest at rate of
8% in light of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in case of Vijay L. Mehrotra
versus State of UP, (2001) 9 SCC 687.

45. Case of Rita Devi versus Union of India, OA No.2630 of 2021 (CAT
Bench Patna) vide order dated 05.07.2023 in case of deceased employee
worked continuously more than seventeen years died in harness while working
as Temporary Status at par with Group 'D' employee status in Postal
Department, not been regularized, widow was denied family pension etc.
This
Tribunal referred ration laid down in O.A. No. 164 of 2008 (
Meena Devi vs.
Union of India
) decided on 20.03.2013, upheld in CWJC No.7760 of 2015
(
Union of India versus Meena Devi
) vide judgment dated 08.12.2022,
Hon'ble High Court, Patna held widow entitled for pension, family pension.

Reference for consideration before Tribunal in case of Rita Devi (Supra) was
whether applicant - widow of Temporary Status at par with Group 'D' -
without regularization was entitled for pension, family pension and benefits this
Tribunal vide order dated 05.07.2023, held applicant's husband be treated as
regular Group 'D' (MTS) notionally from date of grant of Temporary Status at
par with Group 'D' employee and issue pension, family pension and benefits
with arrears.

46.
In case of
Shiv Chandra Sah versus Union of India & Others

O.A.No.145/2019 (CAT Bench Patna) this Tribunal was seisin with issue -

26 OA No. /050/0070/2018

whether applicant who retired more than 25 years service as Temporary Status
at par with Group 'D' without regularization is entitled for pension and other
retirement benefits? Applicant was selected for promotion to MTS, regular post
and applicant did not accept and continued as Temporary Status and retired as
temporary status employee at par with Group 'D'. Applicant started
employment as Night Guard on daily basis in Postal Department, conferred
status of Temporary Status, selected as MTS, did not join denied pension,
family pension. This Tribunal in case Shiv Shankar Sah (Supra) considered
orders passed in similar facts in OA No.372/2017, OA 609/2017, OA 664/2015
upheld in CWJC No.11435 of 2017 by Hon'ble High Court, Patna - failure on
part of Postal Department not to regularize the services of husband, private
respondent in 23 years of service after having granted temporary status at par
with Group 'D' employee and conduct of postal department cannot be
Patna
Bench appreciated or ignored. So also Hon'ble High Court Patna in CWJC No.10978
of 2017 upheld order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.900/2012, directing
respondents to grant pensionary benefits even without regularization under old
pension scheme.

47. Hon'ble High Court, Patna in above judgments observed that as per rules
for temporary status employee becomes entitled for pensionary benefits on
regularization with 10 years of qualifying service which includes full service
after regularization and 50% service rendered under temporary status. On
working for three years as Temporary Status treated at par with Group 'D'
employee with all benefits at par and if a temporary status employee is not
regularized having served more than 20 years, it can only be due to failure of
respondents department. Temporary Status employee officials otherwise
meeting conditions for regularization and pensionary benefits were thus eligible
for pension and retirement benefits. So also this Tribunal considered order
passed in identical case OA No.143 of 2018, a Temporary Status employee, not
regularized and allowed OA for grant of pension. In case of Shiv Chandra Sah
(Supra) vide order dated 21.02.2022, this Tribunal allowed OA, held applicant
entitled for pension and pensionary benefits taking into account his Temporary
Status period as Qualifying Service and treating his superannuation on
03.11.2018, considering 50% pension as Temporary Status as qualifying service
and to issue Pension Payment Orders expeditiously within four months.
Respondents challenged order dated 21.02.2022 in identical case on hand titled

27 OA No. /050/0070/2018

Shiv Chandra Shah (supra) in CWJC No.1415 of 2023 Union of India vs.
Shiv Chandra Shah, upheld by Hon'ble High Court, Patna vide order dated
22.08.2024.

48. In case of Ratneshwar Singh versus Union of India, O.A.
No.777/2018, decided on 20.09.2018, This Tribunal was seisin with issue
applicant engaged as Night Guard as casual worker, conferred with temporary
status on completion three years as Temporary Status employee confirmed at
part with Group 'D' and retired as Temporary Status and claim for pension
denied that his service not regularized and applicant denied to join on
regularization. This Tribunal observed that fact remains respondents did not
issue any order of regularization during 27 years of applicant's service and right
accrued as per Rule 10 of CCS (Temporary Status) Rules 1965 Read with Rule
Patna
Bench
2 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
So also placed reliance in case OA
No.372/2017 dated 27.03.2018 and order dated 21.08.2018 in OA No.609 of
2017 in
Ratneshwar Singh
(Supra) this Tribunal vide order dated 20.09.2018,
allowed OA and directed for fixation of pension, grant of gratuity and all other
retiral dues in light of judgment passed in CWJC No.11435 of 2017 and
CWJC No.10978 of 2017 and order dated 27.03.2018 passed in OA
No.372/2017.

49. Hon'ble High Court Patna in CWJC No.13117 of 2018, Union of India
& Ors versus Ratneshwar Singh vide judgment dated 03.07.2019 upheld
this Tribunal order dated 20.09.2018 in OA No.777/2016. Their Lordships
considered argument of respondents department that contention of department
cannot be accepted that applicant refused promotion to MTS as same cannot be
construed that applicant had declined regularization on post he was occupying
for more than 27 years.

50. The present case is similar to cases cited herein above and covered by
above precedents.

51. In case of Awadhesh Prasad Singh versus Union of India, OA No.143
of 2018, decided on 28.10.2021 by Division Bench of this Tribunal, Seisin with
issue to regularize services of Night Guard continuous since 13.01.1984 and
Temporary Status conferred but not regularized and denied pension etc. This
Tribunal vide order dated 28.10.2021 allowed OA to grant pension and all

28 OA No. /050/0070/2018

pensionary benefits treating his superannuation on 31.10.2019 date of
retirement and directed for issuance of PPO within four months.
Hon'ble High
Court, Patna in CWJC No.128 of 2024 vide order dated 28.10.2024 affirmed
order dated 20.10.2021 in
Awadhesh Prasad Singh
(supra).

52. Respondents Department of Posts filed CWJC No.128 of 2024, Union of
India & Ors. Versus Awadhesh Prasad Singh challenging order dated
28.10.2021 in OA No.143 of 2018 and Hon'ble High Court vide order dated
08.04.2024, heard at length and observed that prima-facie no case is made out,
directed respondents to comply directions of the CAT as a last chance.

53. This Tribunal in case titled
Naina Devi versus Union of India and
others
, OA No.1109 of 2015 vide order dated 24.11.2023 allowed OA. Relevant

Patna
paragraphs 39 to 48 for ready reference are reproduced as under:-

Bench

39.
In
Yashwant Hari Katakkar
(supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that there is nothing on record to show as to why the applicant was
not made permanent even when he had served the government for 18 ½
years. It would be travesty of justice if applicant is denied the pensionary
benefits simply on the ground that he was not regularized not a permanent
employee of the government. Keeping in view facts and circumstances
appellant was deemed to have become permanent after he served the
government for such a long period. The services shall be treated to be
permanent capacity and shall be entitled to the pensionary benefits.

40.
In
Kritnarain Singh
(Supra), Smt Ram Kali Devi (supra),

Meena Devi @ Meena Kunwar
(supra), Division Bench of Hon'ble
High Court Patna examined core issue involved in present OA and their
Lordships upheld the orders passed by this Tribunal in same facts and
law and observed that failure on part of postal department respondents
not to regularize services of employees serving for long period can not be
appreciated and directed respondents to extend benefits of pension, family
pension etc. So also upheld orders of this Tribunal in identical cases.

41. In Shri Painu Ram (supra) Division Bench of Hon'ble High
Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla dealing with identical issue on
similar facts upheld order dated 31.1.2014 passed by coordinate Bench
Chandigarh of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 426/HP/2013 (Chandigarh)
granting relief to applicant held entitled for same benefits admissible to
regular Group 'D' employees once applicant conferred temporary status
and having three years service on temporary status without being
regularised.

42.
In case of
Mrs. Alka Sharma
(supra) Division Bench of
Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana Their Lordships dealing
with pari materia provision of Railway Services (Pension) Rule, Rule 75
of family pension scheme for Railway Servants, 1964. The Hon'ble High
Court considered that employee was not at fault for such lack of
regularization and not regularized to deceased employee inspite 14 years
temporary service and directed to grant family pension and other retiral
benefits inspite of not regularized.

43.
In case of
Awadhesh Prasad Singh
(supra), Division Bench of
this Tribunal decided similar issue in light of same scheme of
Department of Posts seeking pension and other pensioner benefits
including regularization in terms of Rule 10, CCS (TS) Rules 1965 read
with CCS Pension Rules and Government of India decisions, department
of Posts. On examination of Government of India Department of Posts

29 OA No. /050/0070/2018

Policy dated 30.11.1992, Central Civil Services (Temporary Service)
Rules 1965 read with CCS Pension Rules 1972 held that Temporary
employee of Central Government becomes entitled to pension, retirement
gratuity, family pension benefits in cases of retirement from
superannuation or invalidation after continuous temporary/quashi
permanent service not less than 10 years, event of voluntary retirement
after 20 years service and event of death in harness. The OA was allowed
. Pension and all other benefits were granted treating his superannuation
on 31.10.2019. The Hon'ble High Court Patna has upheld the order and
dismissed writ application. The present OA is no different fully covered
issue no more integra and binding on the Tribunal.

44. In case of Santosh Kumari (supra) learned Coordinate Bench
at Chandigarh of this Tribunal decided in October 2023 dealing with
issue "whether person who has not been regularized by respondents, the
provision of Rule 54 (2) of the CCS Pension Rule 1972 for grant of
family pension is attracted or not ?"
The learnd Tribunal On examination
of core legal issue has held that case is fully covered by judgement in
similar cases of
Alka Sharma vs Union of India
, 2017 (2) SCT (P&H)
(DB) passed by Hon'ble High Court Punjab & Haryana also squarely
covered in case of postal department
Sr. Superintendent of Posts
Offices vs Painu Ram
in CWP No. 2299/2014 and Meena Devi in
CWP No. 34 of 2014 passed by Hon'ble High Court Himachal
Patna
Pradesh.

Bench Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and
legal issue in hand in present case also qualified by precedents binding
judicial pronouncements cited herein above of Hon'ble Supreme Court
and High Court of Punjab & Himachal Pradesh and our own Hon'ble
High Court Patna and Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal and present
case is no different. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the
case of applicant is a covered matter on facts and legal issue involved in
the present case and no more res-integra. The applicant is also entitled for
the same treatment and consequential benefits envisaged in the
Fundamental Right under
Article 14

& 21
of Constitution of India
guaranteed to the applicant too..

45. In view whereof reading of sub- clause (3) of clause 2 of Para 5
of the Scheme, dated 30.11.1992 reproduced herein above relating to
benefit to casual labourers on completion of three years service in
temporary status of Casual Labourers (Grant of temporary status and
regularization) Scheme is crystal clear that temporary employee is entitled
to pension and retirement benefits, if he has completed three years of
service in temporary status followed by regularization, The husband of
applicant granted temporary status w.e.f. 1.8.2000 and not been
regularized by respondents inspite of requests and for no fault stood
retired on 30.6.2018 and died on 28.5.2022.

The condition of services of the Temporary Government servants
are regulated by the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules
1965. As per Rule 10 of Rules 1965, legal right accrued for grant of
pension, retirement gratuity and in the event of death after retirement,
members of his family shall be eligible for the grant of family pension
read with the provisions of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 2021
(Erstwhile Rules 1972). The explanation (6) provides appended to Rule
2 Applicability Clause of the CCS Pension Rules 2021 to the extend these
rules shall also apply to the case of government servant appointed in
temporary capacity who retired or were retired before been appointed in a
substantive capacity, the benefits under these rules shall be payable to the
government servant to the extent provide in the Central Civil Services
(Temporary Service ) Rules 1965.

The Rule 50-family Pension of CCS Pension Rules 2021
(Erstwhile Rule 54 (2) of CCS Pension Rules 1972) and pari materia
provision in Rule 75 of family pension scheme for Railway Segvants
1964. It is also submitted that Rule for family pension no where provides
that the individual is to be a regular employee. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of
Yashwant Hari Kakkar
(supra) has held that it would
be travesty of justice if retiree denied pensionary benefits simply on

30 OA No. /050/0070/2018

ground that he was not a permanent employee not regularized after served
for 18 ½ years.

The legal issue in hand also qualified by judicial binding
precedents pronouncements cited herein above of Hon'ble Supreme
Court, Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Hon'ble High Court of
Himachal Pradesh and our own Hon'ble High Court Patna, their
Lordships upheld judgements of this Tribunal in identical facts and legal
issue binding precedents and present case is no different and core issue
is no more res-integra.

46. For the above reasons, the issue accordingly decided in the
favour of the applicant.

47. In consequences, the deceased employee is held entitled for the
pension to be computed as per findings supra . The respondents are also
directed to settle the family pension and other retiral benefits of the
deceased employee and pay the arrears of pension and family pension
from 28.5.2022 onwards with interest @ 8 percent per annum from the
date of entitlement within three months failing which the interest shall be
paid @ 9 percent per annum from the date of entitlement till final
payment

48. The Original Application is accordingly allowed."

[Emphasis Supplied]

Patna
Bench

54. Hon'ble High Court Patna in similar case of
Union of India versus
Ratneshwar Singh, CWJC No.13117
of 2019 vide judgment dated 03.07.2019
(Annexure - A/5 with OA) in paragraph 3, their Lordships held - "These
letters nowhere indicate that the respondent-petitioner had declined to accept
regularization. In the said circumstances, the combined offer made by
petitioner to promote him and then to treat him as regularized was not accepted
by the respondent-petitioner for his personal letters, but that cannot be
construed to mean that he had declined regularization on the post he was
occupying. The continuous occupancy of post remained for 27 years undisputed
in said background judgment in CWJC No.11435 of 2017 as extracted in
paragraph 11 of impugned judgment comes to the aid of respondent-
petitioner." In view of law
laid down in
similar facts and contention raised by
respondents, Ho'ble High Court, Patna their Lordships repelled similar
contention as raised in case on hand. Arguments of learned counsel for
respondents has no force no document produced of promotion order and no
application of refusal and repelled. In view whereof, OA deserves to be
allowed, with all consequential benefits.

55. The legal issue involved in the present case is also qualified by binding
precedents cited herein above upheld by our own Hon'ble High Court Patna,
their Lordships upheld orders passed by this Tribunal in identical facts, legal
issue and binding precedents. This Tribunal is of considered opinion that
present case is no different and core issue is involved is no more res-integra.

31 OA No. /050/0070/2018

56. Respondents much emphasized that applicant while working as
Temporary Status since 01.01.1992 could not be appointed regular Group 'D'
employee. As evident from pleadings applicant worked since year 1983 as
casual labour, but in more than 33 years of service could not be regularized and
applicant never refused to be regularized on post he was working. Respondents
have not produced any order that applicant was promoted and this Tribunal
finds that argument has no force and devoid of merit and repelled.

CONCLUSION

57. For the above reasons, the applicant is held entitled for the pension to
be computed as per findings supra. Respondents are directed to settle the
pension and all other retiral benefits and pay the arrears within period of three
months from date of production/receipt of order passed today, with interest
Patna
Bench
@8% per annum from date of entitlement failing which the interest shall be
paid @9% per annum from date of entitlement till final payment.

58. The Original Application is accordingly allowed.

59. Any pending Misc. Application (s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.

60. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

61. Registry is directed to send copy of order passed today to Chief Post
Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna-800001 to report compliance of order
passed today and submit report within four months for compliance of order
passed today and in case of non-compliance. Registry is further directed to post
this matter before Bench on 10th January, 2025 for reporting compliance.

[Ajay Pratap Singh]
Judicial Member
Central Administrative Tribunal
Patna Bench, Patna
NA/-