Himachal Pradesh High Court

Soma Devi And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 21 November, 2025

( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
CWP No. 3241 of 2016
Reserved on : 05.08.2025
Pronounced on: 21.11.2025
__________________________________________________________

.
Soma Devi and others ...Petitioners

Versus

Union of India and others ...Respondents

Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

of
1Whether approved for reporting?. Yes.

For the petitioners: Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocate.
For the respondents:

rt Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy
Solicitor General of India
[Senior Advocate] with

Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge

Petitioners, namely, Soma Devi being the

widow and Raju Verma and Sunil Kumar being

sons of deceased employee, namely, Mehar Chand,

have come up before this Court, assailing the order

dated 28.10.2015 [Annexure P-5] [referred to as the

Impugned Order] passed by the Learned Central

Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench [referred

to as Tribunal], rejecting the claim of the deceased

employee, namely Mehar Chand for regularization

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

-2- ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

and in not adjudicating the claim of deceased

employee for retiral benefits, including pension for

the continuous and uninterrupted temporary service

.

rendered {w.e.f. 29.11.1989 till superannuation on

08.06.2012}, as admissible to the regular Group "D"

Employees ; and when, based on temporary service

rendered, the retiral benefits including pension were

of
granted to another similarly placed superannuated

employee, namely Shri Shyam Lal Shukla; and

denial
rt
of legal entitlements of retiral benefits to

deceased employee Mehar Chand w.e.f. 08.06.2012

and resultant denial of family pension to the

substituted petitioner no 1, Soma Devi, being the

widow w.e.f 28.01.2015 till day has led to the

filing of third round of litigation, by means of

OA No 063/00161/2014, assailing rejection orders

and in asserting claim for pension / family pension.

FACTUAL MATRIX IN EARLIER ROUND OF
LITIGATIONS BEFORE LEARNED TRIBUNAL:

2. In First Round of Litigation, O.A. No. 618 /

HP/2009, the deceased employee, Mehar Chand, had

filed an Original Application, before Learned Tribunal

by setting up a case that he was engaged as

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

-3- ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

Part-Time Water Carrier in Post Office Bhambla,

District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, on 03.03.1983,

but instead of working as a Part-Time Worker,

.

the Respondents have made him to work for the

duration stretching from 8 hours to 16 hours

continuously and un-interruptedly; and prayed for

grant of Temporary Status on completion of one

of
year's service in terms of the Policy dated 12.04.1991

and had prayed for regularization as granted to

other
rt
similarly placed incumbents, including one

Rattan Chand, who had filed Original Application

No.822/HP/1998, decided on 15.05.2000 and other

Original Applications filed by Puran Chand, Lekh

Chand Sharma and Narain Singh, respectively. The

Original Application filed by the deceased employee,

Mehar Chand, was disposed of by the Learned

Tribunal on 19.07.2010 [at pages 38 to 46 paper

book] by directing the Respondents to consider the

case of the deceased employee, Mehar Chand, for

grant of Temporary Status in terms of the Scheme

of 1991 in the same manner in which the benefits

have been extended to others and with further

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

-4- ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

direction(s) to consider the claim for regularization

as per Rules and Law and the Scheme at the

appropriate time. Pursuant to the orders passed

.

by Learned Tribunal on 19.07.2010, the Respondents

issued an order dated 11.08.2011 [at page 47 of

paper book], whereby, deceased employee, Mehar

Chand, was granted Temporary Status as Casual

of
Labourer w.e.f. 29.11.1989 and after completing

three years of continuous service, he was treated

at par
rt with Temporary Grade 'D' Employees of

Department of Posts w.e.f. 29.11.1992 and was

held entitled for benefits as were admissible to

Temporary Grade 'D' Employees on regular basis

in terms of the Communications-Instructions dated

12.04.1991 and 30.11.1992. Resultantly, the deceased

employee, Mehar Chand, was granted Temporary

Status as Casual Labourer w.e.f. 29.11.1989 and

was treated at par with the Temporary Grade 'D'

Employees w.e.f. 29.11.1992 and was also granted

financial benefits flowing from orders passed by

Tribunal dated 19.07.2010 by issuing implementation

order dated 11.08.2011 but by restricting such

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

-5- ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

benefits for 18 months prior to filing of Original

Application. However, the deceased employee, Mehar

Chand, superannuated from service on 08.06.2012,

.

without being granted the pensionary benefits. Against

this, a legal notice dated 15.08.2013 was served

requesting for grant of pension and other retiral

benefits but the claim was rejected by Respondent-

of
Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Mandi, on

17.09.2013 [at page 54 of paper book] on the

ground,
rt
that since the deceased employee had

retired from service on 08.06.2012 without being

regularized, therefore, he was not entitled for retiral

benefits as were admissible to regular Grade 'D'

Employees by the respondents.

2(i). In Second round of litigation, i.e. OA

No. 1593-HP/2013, the deceased employee, Mehar

Chand, assailed the rejection order dated 17.09.2013

and prayed for granting pensionary-retiral benefits

for temporary service rendered by treating the

said service at par with regular service as per

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) & Ors.

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

-6- ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

etc. versus Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

& Anr. etc. reported in 1990 SCC Suppl. 1113

and the Instructions dated 30.11.1992 and other

.

judgment(s), including the judgments passed in the

case of Shyam Lal Shukla [OA No.1626/2005,

decided on 28.07.2019, which was upheld by the

Allahabad High Court, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition

of
No. 60272 of 2009, decided on 23.12.2011, against

which SLP(C) No.12664 of 2012, titled as Union
rt
of
India versus Shyam Lal Shukla
stood dismissed

on 06.08.2012 [at pages 67 to 81 of paper book].

Original Application filed by Mehar Chand, came

up for hearing before Learned Tribunal on 04.07.2014

and the same was disposed of with directions to

respondents to re-examine the case for regularization

and if any junior was regularized prior to the

date of his superannuation on 08.06.2012 and to

accord benefit of regularization, including pensionary

benefits from the date of retirement. In compliance

to the orders passed by the Learned Tribunal

on 04.07.2014 [at pages 56 to 60 of paper book],

Respondents rejected the case on 21.10.2014 [at

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

-7- ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

page 36 of paper book], on the ground, that once

the deceased employee, Mehar Chand, retired from

service without being regularized, therefore, the retiral

.

benefits including pension cannot be granted to him.

CASE SET UP BY DECEASED MEHAR CHAND
IN THIRD ROUND OF LITIGATION LEADING
TO PASSING OF IMPUGNED ORDER DATED

28.10.2015 [ANNEXURE A-5]:

3. In third round of litigation, i.e. O.A. No. 063

of
/00161/2014, the deceased employee, Mehar Chand,

assailed the rejection orders dated 17.09.2013 and
rt
dated 21.10.2014 with the twin prayers, i.e. firstly,

to grant regularization to him from the date junior

Moti Ram was regularized and secondly, to grant

retiral benefits [including pensionary benefits] by

taking into account temporary service {rendered after

grant of Temporary Status and continuous service} by

treating such temporary service at par with service

rendered by Grade 'D' Employees on regular basis

and based on such temporary service the pensionary

benefits, were granted to Shyam Lal Shukla, who

was made to superannuate from service in temporary

capacity, without granting regularization despite having

rendered two decades of service as temporary employee

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

-8- ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

under the Respondents. In this backdrop, the deceased

employee, namely Mehar Chand had filed OA No 063

/00161/2014, seeking following reliefs:-

.

"(i) That the impugned orders dated 21.10.2014

(A-1, 17.09.2013 (A-6/A) be quashed and
set aside being wholly illegal and arbitrary.

(ii) That it be declared that the applicant is

entitled to pensionary benefits w.e.f. 8.5.2012
with all the consequential benefits along
with 18% interest per annum.

of

(iii) That the applicant be extended the benefit
of the judgment in the case of
Shyam Lal
Shukla
(Supra)."

STAND OF RESPONDENTS BEFORE LEARNED
rt
TRIBUNAL:

4. In Reply to OA No. 063/00161/2014, i.e.

third round of litigation [which is subject matter

of instant petition], the Respondents filed a Written

Statement-Reply on Affidavit of Senior Superintendent

of Post Offices, Mandi. Stand of Respondents in Reply-

Affidavit was that deceased employee, Mehar Chand,

retired on attaining the age of superannuation on

08.06.2012 and the alleged junior, Moti Ram was

not regularized on the date of superannuation of

the deceased employee, namely Mehar Chand on

08.06.2012 whereas, the aforesaid Moti Ram, was

regularized subsequently in the month of November

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

-9- ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

2012 and therefore, the claim for regularization

was stated to be not tenable. So far as the claim

for pensionary benefits is concerned, it was stated

.

that once deceased employee, Mehar Chand was not

a regular employee of the Department and therefore,

the pension was not admissible. In this backdrop

the Respondents prayed for dismissal of the Original

of
Application.

REJOINDER BY ORIGINAL APPLICANT BEFORE
LEARNED CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL:

rt

5. Deceased Employee, Mehar Chand, filed a

rejoinder, stating that the issue as to whether a

Temporary Employee was entitled for pensionary benefits

has already been put at rest by Learned Allahabad

Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Shyam Lal

Shukla, mandating that a Temporary Employee who

was conferred the Temporary Status and thereafter

rendered temporary service till superannuation was to

be granted the service benefits, including pensionary

benefits as were admissible to Grade 'D' Employees

on regular employees. Meaning thereby, that in case

a temporary employee superannuated from government

service without being regularized (due to inaction of

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 10 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

government inaction) therefore, the Original Applicant,

namely, Mehar Chand was entitled to the pensionary

benefits as granted to
Shyam Lal Shukla
(supra).

.

It was averred in Para 4(iv) that Respondents did

not consider the case of deceased Original Applicant-

petitioner, Mehar Chand for regularization against

post of MTS Grade 'D' and had the case been

of
considered in true perspective then, he would have

been regularized. In Para 4 (xiv), the entitlement

of the
rtdeceased Original Applicant-Petitioner for

retiral benefits was asserted to be squarely covered

by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) & Ors.

etc. versus Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. &

Anr, 1990 Suppl. SCC 1113. In above backdrop,

deceased employee Mehar Chand had claimed the

retiral benefits, including pension, on the basis of

temporary service rendered w.e.f. 23.11.1989 till his

superannuation on 08.06.2012 with the prayer to

release all consequential benefits.

ORIGINAL APPLICANT MEHAR CHAND DIED
DURING PENDENCY OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
TRIBUNAL:

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 11 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

6. During the pendency of OA-063/00161/

2014 before Learned Central Administrative Tribunal,

the Original Applicant, namely, Mehar Chand, died

.

on 28.01.2015 [as per death certificate enclosed with

Miscellaneous Application as MA-1] and thereafter his

Legal Heirs, including the petitioner No.1 being the

widow and the petitioners No.2 and 3 being the

of
sons were substituted as Original Applicants before

Learned Central Administrative Tribunal.

rtIMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.10.2015 VIDE
{ANNEXURE P-5} PASSED BY LEARNED CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL:

7. Though in OA No 063/00161/2014, the

Deceased Original Applicant-Petitioner, namely, Mehar

Chand, {which is subject matter of controversy in

instant writ proceedings} had primarily sought two

reliefs i.e. firstly, seeking quashing of the rejection

orders dated 21.10.2014 and 17.09.2013 and claiming

regularization for the prolonged temporary service

rendered from 29.11.1989 for more than two

decades and secondly, for retiral benefits, including

pension even if aforesaid employee superannuated

on 08.06.2012 without having been regularized, in

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 12 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

the light of the mandate of the Honble Supreme

Court in the case of Jagrit Mazdoor Union (infra)

and Establishment Rule 154-A of the Posts and

.

Telegraph Ministerial Manual {at Page 79 of paper

book} by mandating that contingent paid/part time

Chowkidars shall be brought on regular establishment

and such employees shall be treated as a regular

of
employee and in terms of the order passed by

the Allahabad Bench of Tribunal in case of Shyam
rt
Lal Shukla, which has attained finality also entitles

a temporary Government Servant who superannuates

from service, without having been regularized is also

entitled for pensionary benefits.

To the dismay of the Original Applicant,

the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed

the Original Application by passing Impugned Order

on 28.10.2015 [Annexure P-5], disallowing the claim

for regularization on the ground that once no junior

was regularized and the named junior, Moti Ram

was regularized in month of November 2012, after

superannuation of the Original Applicant, namely Mehar

Chand. The operative part of the Impugned Order

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 13 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

dated 28.10.2015 [Annexure P-5], reads as under:-

"6. Learned counsel for the respondents stated
that as per the counter reply filed on
behalf of the respondents, Sh. Moti Ram

.

was appointed as regular MTS Group 'D'

in November, 2012 whereas the services
of the applicant were dispensed on
08.06.2012 on attaining the age of 60

years. Learned counsel further stated that
memo dated 10.11.2010 (Annexure A-8)

of
was not an order regarding regularization of
the services of Sh. Moti Ram and hence
the applicant could not rely on the same
to claim regularization from the same
rt date as Sh. Moti Ram and pensionary

benefits on account of his service.

7. We have given our careful consideration
to the matter. In the earlier round of

litigation in OA No. 1593/HP/2013 decided
on 04.07.2014, it has been directed as
follows:-

"Hence, the respondents are directed
to re-examine the case of the applicant

for regularization and if any junior
of the applicant has been regularized

prior to his date of superannuation
on 08.06.2012 the applicant's claim for
regularization may also be considered.
It is to state the obvious that if
the applicant is regularized, he would
be entitled to pension from the date
he retired from service Such
consideration may be effected within

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 14 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

three months of a date of receipt of
a certified copy of this order being
served upon the respondents and the
applicant may be apprised about the
decision in the matter."

.

It is in response to this order that the
impugned order dated 21 10 2014 has been
passed The respondents have categorically

stated that Moti Ram whose case has
been referred to by the applicant was
appointed as regular MTS Grove in

of
November, 2012. Perusal of the memo
no. B-2/Moti Ram/2010, dated 10.11.2010
(Annexure A-8) shows that this was an
rt
order regarding posting of Sh Moti Ram
Temporary status Casual Labourer treated

at par with Temporary Group 'D' employees,
as Group 'D' against vacant post at Sub
Post Office, Manali. In the endorsement

it is seen that copy no.1 is endorsed to
Moti Ram Temporary Group 'D'. Mandi
HO. This order dated 10.11.2010 cannot

be treated as an order regularizing the

services of Sh. Moti Ram. It is merely
a posting/deployment order. Hence, since
the applicant has not been able to

establish that any person junior to him
was regularized prior to the date when
he superannuated on 08.06.2012, his
claim for regularization prior to his
date of superannuation cannot succeed.
The judgments regarding
Shyam Lal
Shukla
(supra),
UOI & Ors. Vs. Shyam Lal
Shukla
(supra) etc. are distinguishable on

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 15 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

facts.

8. Hence, this OA is rejected. No costs."

8. Heard, Mr. Pawan Gautam, Learned Counsel

for the petitioners and Mr. Balram Sharma, Learned

.

Deputy Solicitor General of India [Senior Advocate]

assisted by Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Learned Counsel, for

the Respondents.

of
ANALYSIS:

9. Taking into account the entirety of the

facts and circumstances and the material on record
rt
this Court is of the considered view, that the

Impugned Order dated 28.10.2015 [Annexure P-5]

passed by Learned Tribunal (Chandigarh Bench) in

not adjudicating the claim of the deceased petitioner

-Mehar Chand and resultant claim of his widow-

Soma Devi for family pension from due date, as

in Para 8(ii) of Original Application No. 063/00161/

2014 for failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested

in it, for reasons recorded in succeeding paras of

this judgement is deprecated ; and the Impugned Order

dated 28.10.2015 [Annexure P-5] rejected the claim

for regularization as in Para 8(i) of OA, by ignoring

the rights and entitlement for regularization, despite

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 16 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

having rendered 23 years of temporary service was

contrary to settled position of law, and on the same

analogy it was granted to others and the Impugned

.

Order denying regularization/deemed regularization,

for reasons recorded hereinafter cannot sustain and

the Impugned Order deserves to be set aside and

deceased Original Applicant-Employee, Mehar Chand,

of
is held entitled for regularization/deemed regularization

and also for pensionary benefits w.e.f. 08.06.2012/
rt
01.07.2012 till his death on 28.01.2015 and the

present petitioner No.1 Soma Devi, being the widow,

is held entitled for family pension from 28.01.2015

onwards, [besides directions to examine the claim of

other substituted petitioners No. 2 and 3, being sons,

subject to eligibility, as per norms].

IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED
TRIBUNAL IGNORING AND NOT ADJUDICATING
CLAIM FOR RETIRAL-PENSIONARY BENEFITS IS
ERRONEOUS:

10. Perusal of the O.A. No. 00163/00161/2014

[Annexure P-1] reveals that the Deceased Original

Applicant-Petitioner, Mehar Chand, had sought two

reliefs i.e. firstly, seeking quashing of the rejection

orders dated 21.10.2014 and 17.09.2013 and claiming

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 17 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

regularization for the prolonged temporary service

rendered from 29.11.1989 for more than two

decades and secondly, for retiral benefits, including

.

pensionary benefits even if the aforesaid deceased

employee had superannuated in the capacity of

a temporary employee on 08.06.2012 [sic written as

08.05.2012 in Para 8 (ii) of Original Application], but

of
without having been regularized, in the light of the

mandate of the Honble Supreme Court in the case

of Jagrit
rt Mazdoor Union [infra] and Establishment

Rule 154-A of the Posts and Telegraph Ministerial

Manual {at Page 79 of paper book} mandating that

the contingent paid/part time Chowkidars shall be

brought on regular establishment and treated as

regular employee and the order passed by the

Allahabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of Shyam

Lal Shukla, conferring pensionary benefits, even if

the petitioner therein, stood retired as a temporary

employee, without being regularized, was upheld by

the Allahabad High Court (at page 78 to 80 of the

paper book], and even the SLP No 12664 of 2012

also stood dismissed on 06.08.2012 (at page 81

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 18 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

of paper book] and the deceased Original Applicant,

Mehar Chand deserves similar treatment.

Scanning of the Impugned Order dated

.

28.10.2015 [Annexure P-5], indicates that the Learned

Tribunal rejected the claim for regularization with

the finding that no junior was regularized prior to

superannuation of the deceased Original Applicant,

of
Mehar Chand on 08.06.2012. Even, a perusal of

the Impugned Order dated 28.10.2015 [Annexure P-5]

indicates
rt
that the Learned Tribunal has neither

considered nor addressed the claim of the petitioner,

Mehar Chand for pensionary benefits despite having

rendered more than 20 years of continuous and

uninterrupted temporary service rendered {after grant

of temporary status on 29.11.1989 till superannuation

on 08.06.2012, by ignoring the entitlement of the

temporary employees, including Chowkidars for service

benefits and pensionary benefits as were admissible

to regular Grade 'D' Employees in the Department

of Posts, in terms of the mandate of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in case of Jagrit Mazdoor Union

[infra], and Establishment Rule 154-A of Posts

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 19 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

and Telegraph Ministerial Manual {at Page 79 of

paper book} [infra] entitling the contingent paid/part

time Chowkidars for being granted temporary status

.

and upon grant of temporary status, these temporary

employees were to be brought on regular establishment

and were to be treated as regular employees and

this entitlement was affirmed by Allahabad Bench

of
of Tribunal and by the Allahabad High Court in

the case of Shyam Lal Shukla [infra], which had
rt
attainted finality after dismissal of SLP, entitling the

temporary employees {who superannuated from service

in temporary capacity, without granting regularization}

for pensionary benefits.

NON-ADJUDICATION OF CLAIM IN PARA 8 (ii)
REGARDING PENSIONARY BENEFITS VITIATES-

IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY TRIBUNAL:

11. Impugned Order dated 28.10.2015 [Annexure

P-5] passed by Learned Tribunal, in not adjudicating

the claim of deceased employee namely, Mehar Chand,

for all pensionary benefits, based on the temporary

service rendered from 29.11.1989 till superannuation

on 08.06.2012 cannot sustain. Learned Tribunal erred

in not exercising jurisdiction vested in it. Once a

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 20 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

matter claiming one or more relief(s) had come up

for adjudication, then, a Court or Tribunal is bound

to adjudicate all the claims prayed for in a said

.

matter-lis. A Court or Tribunal cannot, at its own,

proceed to adjudicate one out of more claims-relief(s)

and proceed to not adjudicate other claims-relief(s).

A Court or a Tribunal has no discretion in the matter.

of
Non adjudication of one or more claims-relief(s) has

to be exercised judiciously and not in a whimsical
rt
manner, unknown in law. A claim-relief(s) can be

abandoned or relinquished by an act of parties to

a lis, either on an application by a party to lis or

a statement made by a party to lis himself or

through counsel. Nothing of this sort, is borne out

from the records that petitioner-Original Applicant,

Mehar Chand (now deceased) had either abandoned

or relinquished or foregone the claim regarding relief

in Para 8 (ii) in OA No 063 /00161/2014, for pension

on the basis of the continuous and uninterrupted

service rendered by him. Non-adjudication of claim

as in Para 8(ii) of OA, has resulted in miscarriage

to justice to the petitioner-Original Applicant, Mehar

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 21 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

Chand by depriving/denying pensionary benefits due

to him w.e.f. 08.06.2012/01.07.2012 and then after

his death to present petitioner-Soma Devi for family

.

pension w.e.f. 28.01.2015. Non-adjudication of the

claim-relief in Para 8(i) of OA, by Learned Tribunal

despite the fact that the entitlement for pensionary

benefits is established in view of the settled law

of
i.e. judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

cases of Jagrit Mazdoor Union and Establishment
rt
Rule 154-A of the Posts and Telegraph Ministerial

Manual {at Page 79 of paper book} {infra} and the

order /judgment passed by Allahabad Bench of Tribunal,

which was upheld by the High Court and by the

Honble Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Lal

Shukla [infra]. Once the entitlement of the petitioner

for pensionary benefits is apparently established in

light of settled position but non-adjudication and

failure on the part of Learned Tribunal to exercise

jurisdiction has resulted in miscarriage of justice

and denying of pensionary benefits cannot sustain,

and is liable to be interdicted by this Court, in

the light of the principles outlined by the Honble

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 22 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

Supreme Court in Central Council for Research

in
Ayurvedic Sciences and Another vs Bikartan

Dass and Others
, (2023) 16 SCC 462 {Paras 50-76}.

.

However, in order to render substantial justice

and in the light of above settled position of law,

deceased petitioner-Mehar Chand is held entitled for

pension w.e.f. 08.06.2012 and upon his death on

of
28.01.2015, the present petitioner No.1 [Soma Devi]

being the widow, is held entitled for "family pension"

rt
w.e.f. 28.01.2015 coupled with the additional fact

that Respondents have made the deceased employee

and now his widow {taken together} to face more

than three rounds of litigation since 2009 till 2025

and therefore, in peculiar fact-situation of instant

case, the Impugned Order, passed by Learned Tribunal

on 28.10.2015 is quashed and set-aside.

ENTITLEMENT FOR ALL PENSIONARY BENEFITS

IN TERMS OF JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME
COURT IN CASE OF JAGRIT MAZDOOR UNION:

12. Respondent Department formulated a scheme

known as Casual Labourers [Grant for Temporary

Status in Regularization] Scheme¸ which was put into

operation from 01.10.1989. Based on the aforesaid

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 23 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

claim for absorption/regularization of Casual Labourers,

the issue for grant of Temporary Status to Casual

Labourers in Postal Department on completion of one

.

(1) year of continuous service with atleast 240 days

of work and on conferment of Temporary Status and

after rendering three (3) years of continuous service

with Temporary Status, such casual labourers were

of
to be treated at par with Grade 'D' Employees of

the Department of Posts and were entitled to such
rt
service benefits and including pensionary benefits as

were admissible to Grade 'D' Employees on regular

basis. Even, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) & Ors. etc. versus

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. & Anr. etc. 1990

SCC Suppl 113, has approved the entitlement of

Casual Labourers for Temporary Status and thereafter

benefit of temporary service rendered after grant of

Temporary Status, for service benefits, including all

pensionary benefits, as were admissible to Grade 'D'

Employees on regular basis, in following terms:-

"......It has been stated that in compliance
with that direction the Department has
already formulated a scheme for

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 24 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

absorption of casual labourers and
about a thousand justified posts are
being created with concurrence of the
nodal Ministry. As per existing recruitment
rules, extra-departmental agents are given

.

preference in the matter of absorption as

Group 'D' postmen. Directions have already
been issued for their absorption against the

vacancies. It has been pointed out again
that casual labourers are being paid bonus
while substitutes are not entitled under

of
the existing scheme. The other note placed
before us at the bearing indicates :

1.
rt Justified (by necessity) posts in
Groups 'C' and 'D' will be created
in the administrative and operative

establishments as per the existing
norms for creation of posts in
consultation with the Finance Ministry.

2. On creation of the posts, recruitment
will be done following the existing

recruitment rules giving preference to
extra-departmental agents over casual

labourers;

3. If on the basis of established norms,

casual labourers are in excess, their
services shall be dispensed with in
accordance with law; and

4. If any casual labourers cannot be
retrenched straightaway, they shall
be paid wages for three months at
the existing rates. This tentative scheme
does not take into account the several

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 25 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

specific claims advanced by the
petitioners in the two writ petitions.
These are House Rent Allowance, City
Compensatory Allowance, Bonus and
Earned Leave. There are also demands

.

for weekly off day, postal holiday

and maternity leave. Weekly off has
now been given to RTPs, casual

labourers and substitutes under order
of this Court and the claim does
not survive for adjudication. All these

of
three categories in these two writ
petitions are also being given three
national Holidays. For the remaining
rt
postal holidays, the claim has been
pressed but we are of the view that

until absorption, they may not be
granted. It has been agreed before
us that the claim of bonus may be

left to arbitration or for being dealt
with by the Consultative Council. As
regards House Rent Allowances, City

Compensatory Allowance and maternity
Leave, we see no justification for

treating the employees of the Postal
Department differently from those

covered under the Regularisation
Rules in the Telecommunications
Department. 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 (206 days in

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 26 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

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
of the Constitution should provide
the same. After rendering three years
of continuous service with temporary
rt
status, the casual labourers shall
be treated at par 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. So far as the
substitutes are concerned, it has been

stated to us that orders have been
issued for considering their claims

against Group 'D' vacancies and a
copy of the Department's letter has

been produced. We hope and trust
that the direction shall be implemented
in its true spirit. The claim on behalf
of substitutes ordinarily is not
entertainable but we have been told
that there are substitutes who work
for long periods continuously. We are
inclined to agree with counsel for

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 27 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

the petitioners that in such cases
their claims should have been
appropriately considered by the
Department.

The writ petitions are disposed of

.

with the aforesaid directions without

any order as to costs."

RIGHT FOR PENSIONARY BENEFITS RULE 154-A

OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPH MANUAL:

13. In order to appreciate the claim and the

of
legal entitlement of the deceased Original Applicant-

Petitioner, namely, Mehar Chand for pension, it is
rt
necessary to have a recap of Establishment Rule

154-A of Posts and Telegraph Manual, reads as under:

"Selected categories of whole time contingency
paid staff such as Sweepers, Bhisties,
Chowkidars, Chobdars, Malis or Gardeners,

Khalasis and such other categories as are
expected to work side by side with regular
employees or with employees in work charged
establishments, should for the present be

brought on to regular establishments of
which they form adjuncts and should

be treated as "regular" employees. The
other contingency staff who do not fulfill
these conditions e.g. Dhobis, Tailors, Syces,
Grass Cutters, etc., should continue on the

existing basis and should be treated to be
"Casual employees". Part time employees of
'regular' categories, as also employees of
'Casual categories who are not brought on
to the regular establishment, will continue,
as at present, to be paid form contingencies. "

In above backdrop, the deceased Original

Applicant-Petitioner, Mehar Chand was appointed as

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 28 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

contingent paid Chowkidar (part time) on 03.03.1983

in Post Office Bhambla and while working as such,

he was granted temporary status of casual labourer

.

on 11.08.2011 [at page 47 of paper book] w.e.f.

29.11.1989 and after grant of temporary status, the

aforesaid employee performed work, job and functions

as that of regular or work charged employees till

of
superannuation on 08.06.2012. In above backdrop,

once Establishment Rule 154-A provides that whole-

rt
time staff, who performs work and functions as that

of regular or work charged employees are to be

brought on regular establishment and treated as

"regular employee'' entitling him for pension. Further,

the claim set up in Para 4 (xii) of the OA that

the deceased employee, Mehar Chand had rendered

temporary service as was performed by regular service

w.e.f. 29.11.1989 and completion of 3 years as such

w.e.f. 29.11.1992 till superannuation on 08.06.2012

stands uncontroverted in the Reply filed before the

Tribunal. Right acquired by deceased employee, Mehar

Chand for being brought on regular establishment

and for treating him as "regular employee" and in

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 29 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

treating the service rendered after grant of temporary

status from 29.11.1989 and after completion of

three years' service as such w.e.f. 29.11.1992 till

.

superannuation on 08.06.2012, was a whole-time

service, as was performed by the regular employees.

Continuous and uninterrupted temporary service

rendered as whole time for more than 20-23 years,

of
as was performable by the regular employees could

neither be wiped out nor obliterated for pensionary
rt
purposes. Inaction of the respondents in not passing

the necessary orders firstly, for bringing petitioner

on regular establishment and secondly, for treating

him as regular employee since 23.11.1989/23.11.1992

till his retirement defeats the object and intent

of Rule 154-A. Inaction of the Respondents in

not passing orders for treating Shri Mehar Chand,

as 'regular employee' in terms of Rule 154-A has

certainly deprived the deceased original applicant-

petitioner Mehar Chand, of his right for pension,

during his lifetime, despite that the petitioner had

rendered more than 20-23 years qualifying service

vis-à-vis requirement of 10 years of qualifying service

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 30 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

under the CCS (Pension) Rules, which were in vogue

on the date of superannuation on 08.06.2012. The

right and legal entitlement of the deceased petitioner

.

for pension under Establishment Rule 154-A and

the CCS (Pension Rules 1972 could not have been

negated or denied by acting contrary to the Rules.

Inaction of Respondents in "neither bring him on

of
regular establishment nor treating him as regular

employee" but in exploiting the petitioner by treating
rt
him as "temporary employee" despite having rendered

whole time/regular service for more than 20-23 years

continuously, is calculated design and an exploitative

methodology to deny the petitioner of the accrued

right for pensionary benefits under the Rules. In these

circumstances, Impugned Order passed by Learned

Tribunal on 28.10.2015 {Annexure P-5}, ignoring the

claim and entitlement of petitioner for pensionary

benefits is interdicted. Ordered accordingly.

RIGHT FOR PENSIONARY BENEFITS IN TERMS
OF JUDGMENT IN CASE OF SHYAM LAL SHUKLA:

14. While adjudicating the claims and rights

of an employee for pension, who was made to retire

as a temporary employee, without being regularized

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 31 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

{despite having rendered temporary service as was

performable by the regular/work charged employees},

was held to be contrary to Establishment Rule 154-A

.

and CCS (Pension), by Learned Central Administrative

Tribunal Allahabad in case of
Shyam Lal Shukla

[supra], by granting pensionary benefits for temporary

service by conferring benefit of deemed regularization,

of
for having rendered more than 17 years of qualifying

service {by reckoned the same after expiry of three

years
rt
w.e.f. 29.11.1992 from date of grant of

temporary status on 29.11.1989 till retirement on

30.06.2003 to
Shyam Lal Shukla
, supra) reads as

under:-

"7. The main defence of the respondents,
in their counter affidavit, is that the

applicant was not regularized in absence

of a vacancy. Privileges and benefits
(including post retrial benefits) have been
conferred upon a casual labour who has

been granted Temporary status treating of
per with regular appointee A photocopy of
Pension Rules has also been filed with
Rejoinder Affidavit as Annexure RA-11;
relevant extract of the same reads

(2) Grant of pensionary benefits to
temporary Government servants
retiring superannuation/invalidation

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 32 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

on completion of twenty years
temporary service. In terms of Rule
2 of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules
1972 a Government servant including
civilian Government servant in the

.

Defence Services appointed

substantively to a civil service of
post in a pensionable establishment

is eligible for the grant of pension
and death cum-retirement gratuity.

A Government servant who at the

of
time of retirement from service does
not hold a then on a permanent
pensionable post is not eligible for
rt
pension and death-cum-retirement
gratuity but is eligible for terminal

gratuity under sub-rule (1) of Rule
10 or sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 of
the C.C.S. (T.S.) Rules, 1965. The

question of grant of pension to
Government servants who retire
after long years of service without

being confirmed in any post
has been under the consideration

of the State Government. The
position has been reviewed and the

President is pleased to that a
Government servant who in his
retirement 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

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 33 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

temporary service of not less than
twenty years shall be brought
dispensed with in his case.

Consequently, such a Government
servant will be eligible for the

.

grant of superannuation or invalid

pension, death- cum- retirement
gratuity and family pension in

accordance with the provisions of
the aforesaid rules.

of

8. Respondents have filed 'supplementary
counter reply' sworn by one Shri R.S.
Mishra, the then Senior Superintendent of
rt Post Offices (in reply to Rejoinder Affidavit(s).
In the said supplementary counter affidavit
respondents have again reiterated their

defence of non-availability of 'Vacancy'
and that the applicant is not entitled to
the benefits/privileges claimed in the OA.

For convenience para 5, 6 and 7 of the same
are reproduced:-

5. That the contents of paragraph No.

5 of the rejoinder affidavit are

not correct as such are denied.

The averments made in paragraph
No. 3 (A) of the counter affidavit

are reaffirmed as correct. However,
it is further submitted that the
applicant was engaged as contingency
paid Chowkidar in Shason Post
Office on daily wages on 10-04-1982.
Temporary status of Group 'D' was
given to him w.e.f. 29.11.1989 as
per Director General Post Letter

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 34 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

dated 12-04-1991 (Annexure-CA-1 to
the counter affidavit). He was not
regularized as Group 'D' in the
absence of vacancy for casual
employees. He was retired on

.

attaining the age of 60 years on

30-06-2003. Rule 154-A of Postal
Manual appointment and allowances

as referred hereby, the applicant
does not allow, the automatic
regularization of casual employee in

of
Group 'D' It is added that the post
of Contingent Paid Chaukidar comes

rt under the purview of Director General
Post letter No. 45-95/87-SPB dated
12-04-1991: The averments made

by the applicant are misconceived
and not correct. Since the applicant
was not regularized as regular

Group 'D' as per Para-6, of Director
General Post letter dated 12-04-1991
(Annexure-CA-1 to the counter

affidavit) and para 3(3) of Director
General Post letter No. 66-9/81-

SPB-1 dated 30-11-1992 (Annexure-
A-13 to the original application),

hence the applicant is not entitled
for pension and pensionary benefits.

6. That the contents of paragraph No
6 of the rejoinder affidavit are not
correct as such are denied. The
averments made in paragraph No.
3 (B) of the counter affidavit are
reaffirmed as correct. However, it

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 35 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

is further submitted that the
Government of India DOP and AR
OM No. 38 (16)/Pension Unit/80
dated 30-12-1980 referred hereby,
the same is not applicable in the

.

case of applicant, as his services

have not been regularized as regular
Group 'D' in the absence of vacancy.

The applicant has tried to mislead
this Hon'ble Tribunal by twisting
the facts.

of

7. That the contents of paragraph No.
7 of the rejoinder affidavit are not
rt correct as such are denied. The

averments made in paragraph No. 3

(C) of the counter affidavit are

reaffirmed as correct. However, it
is further submitted that the
applicant was engaged as Contingent

paid Chaukidar on 10-04-1982 on
daily wages. He was given temporary
status of Group "D' w.e.f. 29-11-1989

as per Director General Post letter

dated 12-04-1991. Monthly wages
calculated on the basis of daily wages
after taking into account the annual

increments accrued to the applicant
averments made by the applicant
in paragraph under reply are not
covered by the rules in force.

9. The Essential facts to decide the controversy
in the OA are not being denied by
the respondents in the counter reply/

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 36 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

supplementary counter reply as noted
above. respondents have taken work from
the applicant throughout without objection
and/or finding deficiency in the performance
of duties by the Applicant for about

.

two decades. The respondents granted

temporary status and extended all
benefits including contribution to G.P.F.

at par with other regular employees
(as contemplated under relevant Rules)
except for issuing formal order of

of
regularization. On the admitted facts of
the instant case, respondents themselves
engaged and continued appointment of the
rt
applicant, allowed him to work for long
time till he attained superannuation, treating

him at par with regular employees and
he continued in service with all incidences
of regular employee (except formal order).

Non Consideration or failure to regularize
under rules is a lapse' on the part
of the respondents and they cannot

take advantage of their own fault.
Admittedly work was there- the Applicant

was paid salary with increments and
even contributed to GPF (a privilege of

permanent employee). Apex Court held that
if a Daily Rated Worker/ Casual Labour
/or Temporary employee, is working
since long period without objection on
any score; the said employee may
acquire all antecedents and essential
by virtue of a regular employee and
he should be treated as such.

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 37 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

14. In view of admitted facts (noted above), the
applicant is deemed to be regularized,
treated as 'regular employee' of the
Department and declared entitled to
all post retiral benefits as per relevant

.

statutory rules in force. It is further

provided that post retiral benefits shall
be paid along with 9% per annum annual

interest from the date it become due
from the date of its actual payment. Learned
counsel for the applicant has submitted

of
that he does not press for costs. It is made
clear that applicant shall not be entitled

rt to arrears of salary (if any) prior to his
date of superannuation.

15. Accordingly, OA stands allowed subject to

above directions/observations. Respondents
are directed to ensure payment of
'pension' and all other post retiral

benefits as expeditiously as possible but
not beyond the period of three months in
accordance with law."

14(i). The Orders passed by Learned Central

Tribunal, was assailed by Respondents before the

Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.

Writ Petition No. 60272 of 2009, titled as
Union of

India vs Shyam Lal Shukla
, and same was dismissed

on 23.12.2011, upholding right for pensionary benefits,

as per Rule 154-A, in the following terms:

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 38 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

".....From the perusal of Rule 154 A of
Manual it is manifestly clear that the
Chowkidar, Sweeper, Malis, Khalasis who

worked side by side with regular or with
employees in Work Charge Establishment

.

should be brought on regular Establishment

and should be treated regular employees.
The Rule itself has used the word 'regular

employee' without any reference to formal
order of regularization. The Tribunal has
relied on Rule 154 A of the Manual of

of
appointment and allowances of the Officers
of the Indian Post & Telegraphs Department.
It is, undisputed fact that the respondent
rt
no.1 has worked and has received the
payment from contingent fund w.e.f. 10.4.1982

to 26.11.1989 i.e. Seven Years Six Months
and Nineteen days, thereafter from the
consolidated fund of Central Government

from 26.11.1989 to 29.11.1992 three years
and then from 30.11.1992 till the date of
retirement i.e. 30.6.2003 as temporary

Government Employee of Group D, for ten
years Seven months and One day. The total

qualifying service for pension comes to
17 years, four months and 10 days.

It is admitted case that the respondent no.
1 from his Initial engagement i.e. 10.4.1982
till his date of superannuation i.e. 30.6.2003
has worked uninterruptedly and to the entire
satisfaction of the Department as has been
stated in the Counter Affidavit, Supplementary
Counter Affidavit before the Tribunal and
in the Writ Petition before this Court and

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 39 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

there is no mention that the work of the
respondent no.1 was unsatisfactory.

The Tribunal has also relied on the order
of the Supreme Court in Special Leave to

.

Appeal dated 13.1.1997 arising out of the

Original Application No. 159/93 of Tribunal,
in the case of (
Ram Lakhan v. Union of
India and others
) as well as order dated 2nd

September, 2005 in Original Application
No. 917 of 2004, (
Chandi Lal versus Union

of
of India and others
). The aforesaid orders were
on the record of the Tribunal as Annexure-
AR-2 and AR-3 with affidavit filed on 26.8.2008
in similar facts.

rt
In our view the said Rule clearly spells

out its essential purpose, to give pensionary
benefit to certain class of employees as
'regular employee', notwithstanding the
fact that no formal order of regularization

was passed. Sri Singhal has relied on the
judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal,

Lucknow Bench, Lucknow passed in Original
Application No. 509 of 2004. We have perused

the said judgment
. In the said case, the
learned Tribunal has not taken note of the

Scheme framed by the Department dated
12.4.2001 and paragraph 17 of the Scheme
where it is clearly provided that no recruitment
will made from open market for Group D
posts (except on compassionate appointment)
till casual labours with requisite qualifications
are available to fill up the posts in question.
Moreover, the Tribunal has also mis-construed

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 40 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

Rule 154 (a) as it has not appreciated
the said Rule in correct prospective. It
appears, the relevant part of the said Rule
wherein it is provided that the Chowkidars
etc. should be treated as "regular employee"

.

subject to completion of conditions mentioned

therein, has escaped the notice of the learned
Tribunal. Sri Singhal has also relied on

the judgment of the Supreme Court passed
in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka
v. Umadevi
reported in 2006 (2) UPLBEC

of
1880. The said judgement has no application
in the present case as in the present

rt matter the Scheme has been framed by the
Postal Department in compliance of the
order of the Supreme Court and the said

Scheme has been approved by the Supreme
Court. Thus the Postal Department /Petitioner
herein cannot resile from its obligation to

implement the said Scheme in letter and
spirit. In the background of the aforesaid
facts we are satisfied that there is no

error in the impugned judgment of the
Tribunal and it does not call for interference

under
Article 226
of the Constitution. Hence,
the writ petition is dismissed..."

14(ii). Still aggrieved against the upholding of

order of Learned Central Administrative Tribunal by

the Allahabad High Court, the Respondent-Union of

India filed SLP (C) No.12664 of 2012 before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re; Union of India &

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 41 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

Ors. versus Shyam Lal Shukla and the same was

dismissed on 06.08.2012, in the following terms:-

"Delay condoned.

We find no merit in this petition for special

.

leave. It is dismissed."

ENTITLEMENT FOR BENEFITS IN TERMS OF
DIVISION BENCH JUDGMENT IN THE CASE

OF PAINU RAM:

15. While dealing with the case of Painu

of
Ram, who was appointed as Part-Time Chowkidar

at Post Office, Talai on 02.02.1982 and was denied
rt
Temporary Status and the benefit of the Temporary

Service for regularization and other consequential

benefits, including retiral benefits filed OA No 426

/HP /2013, titled as
Painu Ram versus Union of

India and others
and the same was decided on

31.01.2014, entitling the aforesaid Painu Ram for

pensionary benefits as are admissible to regular

Grade 'D' Employees of the Department. Respondent

-Senior Superintendent of Post Offices assailed

orders dated 31.01.2014 before this Court in CWP

No.2299 of 2014, in Re;
The Sr. Supdt. of

Post Offices versus Shri Painu Ram
and the

same was decided on 23.07.2018, dismissing the

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 42 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

writ petition and in upholding the orders passed

by Learned Tribunal, entitling the aforesaid
Painu

Ram
(supra) for benefit of temporary service for

.

all pensionary benefits, in the following terms:-

"3. The original applicant was initially
appointed as a part time Chowkidar

in Post Office at Talai on 02.02.1982.
Though, his appointment was as a part
timer, however, he worked with the

of
respondent-Department from 5:00 p.m. to
9:00 p.m., which were the same duty
rt hours as that of a regular appointee on
the post concerned. It is not in dispute
that feeling aggrieved by non-conferment of

temporary status upon him, present
respondent earlier filed OA No. 405-HP 2010
before learned Central Administrative

Tribunal praying that a direction be issued
to the respondent to grant him temporary
status and subsequently regularize his

services against the post of Chowkidar

with all consequential benefits in terms
of the Scheme of the Department dated
12.04.1991.

6. Learned Tribunal after relying upon the
relevant portion of letter dated 30.11.1992
so issued by the respondent-Department,
as also directions issued by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in
Jagriti Mazdoor Union

(supra) and the order passed by learned
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench, in OA No. 1626 of 2005, titled

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 43 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

as
Shyam Lal Shukla vs. Union of
India & Ors.
dated 28.07.2009, which
stood confirmed by Allahabad High Court,

9. During the course of arguments, learned
Assistant Solicitor General of India

.

could not dispute that the persons,
similarly situated as the present
respondent, have already been held to

be entitled for benefits which were
accruable to regular Group 'D' employees,

of
by various Benches of the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal and one such
0rder passed by the Allahabad bench
rt of the learned Tribunal has been
upheld by the Allahabad High Court.
We have also been informed at the bar

that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
High Court of Allahabad has attained
finality.

10. The factum of the respondent having been
conferred temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989

in group 'D' is not in dispute. The relevant
portion of the letter dated 30.11.1992,

which stands relied upon by the learned
Tribunal while granting the relief to

the present respondent is quoted herein-
below....

12.
In view of the contents of communication
dated 30.11.1992 as also the directions
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in
Jagriti Mazdoor Union
' case (supra),
we do not find any infirmity with the
directions issued by the learned Tribunal

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 44 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

in favour of the present respondent. Said
directions are strictly in consonance with
the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in
Jagriti Mazdoor Union
's case
(supra), as also the contents of communication

.

dated 30.11.1992. In our considered view,

after the conferment of the temporary
status upon the present respondent, he

was entitled for benefits which are
accruable to a regular Group 'D' employee
after completion of three years of

of
service on temporary basis. In view of
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court

rt as also the orders passed by various
Benches of learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, it cannot be said that the

relief granted by learned Central
Administrative Tribunal in favour of
the present respondent is not sustainable

in law, especially in view of contents
of letter dated 30.11.1992.

13. Accordingly, we do not find any

infirmity with the order passed by the

learned Central Administrative Tribunal. The
same is upheld and this writ petition being
devoid of merits is dismissed."

CLAIM FOR PENSIONARY BENEFITS EVEN
IF REGULARIZATION DENIED ILLEGALLY ON
ANALOGY OF SUNIL SONI:

15. While dealing with a claim of one Shri

Sunil Soni, who had served from 21.09.1989 in

temporary capacity and was made to superannuate

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 45 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

but without retiral benefits, was held entitled for

retiral benefits, on analogy on which benefits were

granted by Learned Tribunal to Shyam Lal Shukla

.

[supra], which were upheld by Allahabad High

Court. Even the Orders passed by Learned Tribunal,

entitling Sunil Soni [supra] for pensionary benefits

was upheld by Punjab and Haryana High Court,

of
in Writ Petition No.15138 of 2022 in Re;
Union

of India and others versus Sunil Kumar
and
rt
another, on 18.07.2022, in the following terms:-

"Challenge in the writ petition is to
the order of Central Administrative
Tribunal, Chandigarh dated 08.02.2019
(Annexure P-3) at this belated point of

time after a period of more than three
years. The model employer, the Union of

India is aggrieved against the directions
of regularization and for the grant

of retiral dues to a class-IV employee
who served them from 21.09.1989 as

a Waterman-cum-Angithi Burner and
who superannuated on 31.01.2018.

The Tribunal has found the employee had
completed 240 days as on 01.09.1993 and
was entitled to the benefit of temporary
status and which had been granted
w.e.f. 01.09.1993, which would clear
from the order dated 07.08.1998 (Annexure A-

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 46 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

5). Apparently his case was also

forwarded to the concerned quarter for
regularization thereafter on account
of the regularization policy issued by the
petitioner-Union of India itself dated

.

11.12.2006 (Annexure A-9) as he had

completed 10 years' service on 10.04.2006.
Names of juniors were considered and

order dated 02.07.2008 (Annexure A-10)
was also passed granting them the benefits
on the basis of which respondent No.1

of
had claimed the same before the Tribunal.
The objection taken was that he was
overage
rt at the time of initial entry
into service and illiterate and therefore
not entitled for regularization nor for

retiral dues.

Keeping in view the fact that there was
earlier decision on the same issue in original

application No.1626 of 2005 titled as

Shyam Lal Shukla Vs. Union of India
and others
decided on 28.07.2009 by

the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad

Bench which has been upheld by the
jurisdictional High Court, the benefit was
granted by the Tribunal.

We have perused the paper book and
are of the considered opinion that the
Tribunal has not erred in any manner. Specific
averments were made in the original
application that juniors have been granted
the said benefit in paragraph 4(viii) and
that he had been made to retire on

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 47 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

temporary status without any retiral
benefits released to him. The response
as such was only a bald averment that
he was overage being 30 years and was
not qualified and was illiterate and is not

.

eligible for appointment.

The counsel for the Union of India could
not point out from the policy in question

that there was any bar at such under
the policy that such persons were not

of
to be granted the benefits of regularization.
We have also gone through the list which
has been appended who have been
given the said benefit and at certain places
rt
there are other persons whose qualifications
have not been mentioned. The same would

be clear from Sr. No.91 Darshan Kumar,
Mali, Sr. No.95 Sanjay Kumar, Sweeper,
Sr.No.125 Ram Charan, Waterman and

Sr.No.142 Pala Ram, Frash where there
educational qualifications were shown as
nil. It is thus apparent that Union of India

is fighting its battle unfairly and not

wanting to grant the benefit of its
own instructions to a person who served
them water diligently from 1989.

In such circumstances, we are constrained
to dismiss the present writ petition in
limine while imposing cost of Rs.25,000/
on the concerned person who authorized
the filing of the writ petition at this belated
stage, after 3 years. The effect of the
Tribunal's order and the costs aspect be

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 48 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

complied with within a period of two
months from today. The higher officials shall
also fix the responsibility, who authorized
the filing of such petition challenging the
benefits to be given to a lowly placed

.

employee.

Let a report be submitted to the Registrar
General of this Court regarding the action

taken within a period of three months."

TEMPORARY SERVICE COUNTS FOR PENSION

of
UNDER CCS (TEMPORARY SERVICE) RULES:

16. Undisputedly, petitioner, namely, Mehar

Chand, was granted the Temporary Status w.e.f.

rt
29.11.1989 and had rendered continuous service

as Temporary Government Servant till superannuation

on 08.06.2012. This temporary service entitles the

petitioner, Mehar Chand, for pension under Rule

10 of CCS [Temporary Service] Rules, 1965, in

accordance with the CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972. The

relevant part of Rule 10 of CCS [Temporary Service]

Rules, 1965, reads as under:-

"10. Terminal gratuity payable to
temporary Government servants:
10 (1) ......... no relevant.
10 (1-A) ......... no relevant.

10 (1-B) "In the case of a temporary
Government servant who retires from
service on attaining the age of

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 49 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

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

of

accordance with the provisions of
the Central Civil Services (Pension)

rt 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

10 (2) In the event 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 (Pension) Rules,
1972;

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 50 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

10 (3) ......... no relevant."

Rule 10 [1-B] and 10(2) of CCS [Temporary

Service] Rules, entitles a Temporary Government Servant

.

for pension and gratuity on superannuation, after

rendering more than 10 years of service as temporary

government servant. In the instant case, once the

petitioner has rendered temporary government service

of
from 29.11.1989 till his superannuation from service

on 08.06.2012 then, the action of the Respondents
rt
in denying the benefit of pension and gratuity, upon

superannuation, under Rule 10 (1-B) and 10 (2) of

CCS (Temporary Service) Rules in accordance with

CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is illegal.

UNFAIR TO TREAT EMPLOYEE AS TEMPORARY
FOR DECADES ONLY TO DENY PENSIONARY
BENEFITS IS TRAVESTY OF SERVICE:

17. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of
Yashwant Hari Katakkar versus Union of

India and others
, (1996) 7 SCC 113, has mandated

that it would be travesty of justice if an employee

is denied pensionary benefits simply on the ground

that he was not a permanent employee, in following

terms:-

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 51 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

"2. The appellant sought premature
retirement from government service

after he had put in 18½ years of service
in two different departments under the
Central Government. Although a request

.

for premature retirement could be made

only after 20 years of government service
but the Union of India granted premature

retirement to the appellant at a stage
when he had served the Government
for 18 1/2 years. The question for

of
determination is whether the appellant
is entitled to any pensionary benefits.

rt The Central Administrative Tribunal
rejected the claim of the appellant.

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 18½ years of
quasi-permanent service. According to
him, to earn pension it was necessary

to have a minimum of 10 years of

permanent service. It is contended
that since the total service of the appellant
was in quasi-permanent capacity he

was not entitled to the pensionary benefit.
There is nothing on the 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

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 52 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

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

of
treated to be in permanent capacity
and he shall be entitled to the

rt 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 18½ years (more

than 10 years of permanent service)
and as such his case for grant of
pension be finalised 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."

MERE NOMENCLATURE BEING TEMPORARY NO
GROUND TO DENY PENSIONARY BENEFITS

18. Deprecating the stand of the Respondents-

Union of India that temporary Government Servants

appointed on various posts under the Compulsory

Savings Scheme Deposits Fund were not entitled

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 53 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

for service and pensionary benefits under the CCS

Rules, despite having rendered temporary service

for decades and when, the service performed had

.

the hallmark of regular service in terms of work,

job, duties and functions performed then, mere

status or nomenclature being temporary status" is

oversimplification of their employment relationship

of
with the government by creating a class just to

deprive temporary government servants of benefits
rt
and protections, including pensionary benefits, was

held arbitrary and violating fundamental rights as

guaranteed by
Articles 14
and
of the Constitution

of India by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rajkaran

and Others versus Union of India and Others
,

2024 SCC OnLine SC 2138, in following terms:-

"29. Indisputably, the appellants have served
SFF HQ Estt. No.22 for over three
decades. While the duration of service

alone may not be determinative, it is
a significant factor when considered
in conjunction with the other aspects
of their employment. Such long-term
service suggests a level of permanence
and integration into the governmental
structure that belies their classification
as temporary employees. The appellants

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 54 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

performed duties similar to those of
regular employees in the Accounts
Section of SFF HQ Estt. No.22. This
similarity in job functions further
blurs the line between the appellants'

.

status and that of regular government

employees, suggesting that the
distinction may be more formal than

substantive. The extension of significant
elements from the 4th and 5th
CPC
to
the appellants further cements their

of
plea of being employed in governmental
functions.

31. As held in
Vinod Kumar
(supra), "the
rt essence of employment and the rights
thereof cannot be merely determined

by the initial terms of appointment
when the actual course of employment
has evolved significantly over time."

32. This Court fully associates with this
principle and finds it wholly applicable

in the present case, especially in light
of the administrative orders and Board

proceedings referred to supra that have
consistently treated the appellants as

equivalent to regular government
employees. The mere classification of
employees as 'temporary' or 'permanent'
is not merely a matter of nomenclature
but carries significant legal implications,
particularly in terms of service benefits
and protections.

33. In the present case, the totality of

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 55 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

circumstances indicates that despite
their formal classification as temporary
employees, the appellants' employment
bears substantial hallmarks of regular
government service. The denial of

.

pensionary benefits solely on the

basis of their temporary status, without
due consideration of these factors,

appears to be an oversimplification
of their employment relationship
with the government. This approach

of
runs the risk of creating a class of
employees who, despite serving the

rtgovernment for decades in a manner
indistinguishable from regular employees,
are deprived of the benefits and protections

typically accorded to government servants.

34. Thus, we are of the opinion that the
denial of pensionary benefits to the

appellants is not tenable or justifiable
in the eyes of law as the same is
arbitrary and violates the fundamental

rights as guaranteed by
Articles 14

and
of the Constitution of India. It
is indeed relevant to note that the
appellants' batch seems to be the last

in their genre of SSD Fund temporary
employees and thus, manifestly, the
direction to extend the benefits of the
6th
CPC
and the RP Rules to the
appellants shall not form a precedent
so as to have a detrimental effect on the
financial health of the SSD Fund."

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 56 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

19. While dealing with denial of claim for

regularization for want of vacancies, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018,

.

in Re;
Dharam Singh & Ors versus State of

U.P. & Anr.
, decided on 19.08.2025 has outlined

that long-term extraction of work under temporary

labels corrodes confidence in public administration

of
and offends the promise of equal protection and

such adhocism erodes not only the dignity of
rt
workers and their livelihood but such exploitation

practice offend
Articles 14
, 16
and
of the

Constitution of India. After deprecating such practice,

directions were issued to accord the benefit of

regularization to Casual Incumbents, in the following

terms:-

"19. Having regard to the long, undisputed
service of the appellants, the admitted
perennial nature of their duties, and the

material indicating vacancies and comparator
regularizations we issue the following
directions:

i. Regularization and creation of
Supernumerary posts: All appellants
shall stand regularized with effect
from 24.04.2002, the date on which the
High Court directed a fresh

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 57 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

recommendation by the Commission
and a fresh decision by the State on
sanctioning posts for the appellants.
For this purpose, the State and the
successor establishment (U.P. Education

.

Services Selection Commission) shall

create supernumerary posts in
the corresponding cadres, Class-III

(Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV
(Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent)
without any caveats or preconditions.

of
On regularization, each appellant shall
be placed at not less than the minimum

rt of the regular pay-scale for the post,
with protection of last-drawn wages
if higher and the appellants shall be

entitled to the subsequent increments
in the pay scale as per the pay grade.
For seniority and promotion, service

shall count from the date of
regularization as given above.

ii. Financial consequences and arrears:

Each appellant shall be paid as arrears

the full difference between (a) the pay
and admissible allowances at the
minimum of the regular pay-level for

the post from time to time, and (b)
the amounts actually paid, for the
period from 24.04.2002 until the date
of regularization/retirement/death, as
the case may be. Amounts already
paid under previous interim directions
shall be so adjusted. The net arrears
shall be released within three months

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 58 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

and if in default, the unpaid amount
shall carry compound interest at 6%
per annum from the date of default
until payment.

iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who

.

has already retired shall be granted
regularization with effect from 24.04.2002
until the date of superannuation for

pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii),
and recalculation of pension, gratuity
and other terminal dues. The revised

of
pension and terminal dues shall be
paid within three months of this
rt Judgement.

iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of

Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant
who has died during pendency, his/her
legal representatives on record shall
be paid the arrears under clause (ii)

upto the date of death, together with
all terminal/retiral dues recalculated

consistently with clause (i), within three
months of this Judgement.

v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal
Secretary, Higher EducationDepartment,

Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the
Secretary of the U.P. Education Services
Selection Commission or the prevalent
competent authority, shall file an
affidavit of compliance before this Court
within four months of this Judgement.

20. We have framed these directions
comprehensively because, case after case,

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 59 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

orders of this Court in such matters
have been met with fresh technicalities,
rolling "reconsiderations," and administrative
drift which further prolongs the
insecurity for those who have already

.

labored for years on daily wages.

Therefore, we have learned that Justice
in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter

directions, but it demands imposition of
clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable
compliance. As a constitutional employer,

of
the State is held to a higher standard
and therefore it must organize its
perennial
rt workers on a sanctioned
footing, create a budget for lawful
engagement, and implement judicial

directions in letter and spirit. Delay to
follow these obligations is not mere
negligence but rather it is a conscious

method of denial that erodes livelihoods
and dignity for these workers. The operative
scheme we have set here comprising

of creation of supernumerary posts, full
regularization, subsequent financial benefits,

and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is
therefore a pathway designed to convert

rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that
fairness in engagement and transparency
in administration are not matters of
grace, but obligations under
Articles 14
,
and
of the Constitution of
India."

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 60 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

CONCLUSION:

20. Based on the discussion made hereinabove,

this Court deprecates the Learned Tribunal in not

.

adjudicating the claim of the deceased petitioner-

namely, Mehar Chand for pension for continuous

and uninterrupted temporary service rendered after

grant of temporary status from 29.11.1989 till

of
superannuation on 08.06.2012 and the resultant

claim of present petitioner no 1-widow Soma Devi
rt
for family pension from 28.01.2015 till day, despite

the entitlement for pensionary benefits in view of

the settled law i.e. judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Jagrit Mazdoor Union and the provision

of Establishment Rule 154-A of the Posts and

Telegraph Ministerial Manual {at Page 79 of paper

book} (supra} and the order/judgment passed by

Allahabad Bench of Tribunal, which was upheld

by the High Court and by the Honble Supreme

Court in case of
Shyam Lal Shukla
(supra), which

stands implemented and based on the judgement

in the case of Shyam Lal Shukla, the entitlement

for pensionary benefits as granted by the Learned

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 61 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

Tribunal was upheld by a Coordinate Division

Bench of this Court in the case of
Pianu Ram

(supra) and by the Punjab and Haryana High

.

Court in the case of
Sunil Soni
(supra). Even,

the right and entitlement for pensionary benefits

to deceased petitioner and his widow is borne

out from the CCS (TS) Rules, as
referred to above
.

of
Once the entitlement of petitioner for pensionary

benefits is apparently established in the light of
rt
the settled position of law and the Rules coupled

with the fact that the pensionary benefits have

been granted to other similarly placed temporary

employees, who had rendered temporary service

for continuous service, on whole time by performing

same work, job, duties and functions as was

performed by regular employees but were retired

without being regularized, and the Courts have

affirmed the right of such temporary employees

in respondent department for pensionary benefits,

by granting "deemed regularization" therefore, the

petitioner being similarly placed, deserves similar

treatment as granted to others so as to ensure

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 62 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

parity and to obviate the charge of discrimination.

Treating petitioner differently, shall lead to "treating

equals as unequal", which cannot be permitted to

.

sustain. Failure on the part of Learned Tribunal

to exercise its jurisdiction by not adjudicating

the claim has resulted in miscarriage of justice

and denying of pensionary benefits to the deceased

of
Original Applicant Mehar Chand and the resultant

denial of family pension to the present petitioner
rt
no 1 has violated the social security, by way of

pensionary benefits, and the inaction is interdicted.

Now, coming to Impugned Order dated

28.10.2015, (Annexure P-5) dismissing the claim of

deceased Original Applicant-petitioner, Mehar Chand

for regularization, this Court is of the considered

view, that the view taken by the Learned Tribunal

is untenable, for the reason, that firstly, non-

regularization amounts to exploitative practice by

making the deceased employee, Mehar Chand w.e.f.

29.11.1989 till superannuation on 08.06.2012;

and secondly, the non-availability of vacancy for

regularization cannot be ground to deny benefit

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 63 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

of regularization, when as per Establishment Rule

154-A, the Respondents were bound to bring the

employee-Mehar Chand on regular establishment

.

and to treat him as deemed regular employee

which was not done; and thirdly, once the right

of temporary employees, who were granted temporary

status for being brought on regular establishment

of
and were mandatorily to be treated as "regular

employees" by virtue of Rule 154-A, then, the
rt
rights acquired under Rule 154-A could not be

permitted to be negated by Respondents due to

the inaction or lethargy of respondents in not

taking timely action for giving effect to right of

consideration and upon consideration for actual

regularization under aforesaid Rule; and fourthly,

the rights acquired in terms of the judgements

in the cases of
Jagrit Mazdoor Union
(supra)

and
Shyam Lal Shukla
, (supra) cannot be negated

when, the latter judgement has attained finality

and stands implemented also; and fifthly, even

deceased employee-Mehar Chand is similarly placed

with
Shyam Lal Shukla
(supra) as both incumbents

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 64 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

were granted the temporary status in 1989 and

after grant of temporary status both stood retired

from service after rendering decades of temporary

.

service (ranging between more than 17 years in

case of Shyam Lal Shukla and more than 20

years in case of Mehar Chand) and both stood

retired from service without being regularized and

of
by virtue of judicial intervention, Shyam Lal Shukla

was granted pensionary benefits by treating and
rt
conferring benefit of "deemed regularization" then,

the petitioner deserves similar treatment so as to

ensure similar treatment in terms of the mandate

of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of

State of Uttar Pradesh versus Arvind Kumar &

Ors
(2015) 1 SCC 347 and Siraj Ahmad versus

State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) 17 SCC 626 and

in Lt Col.
Suprita Chandel versus Union of

India, Civil Appeal 1943 of 2022, that the benefit

of a judgement has to be granted to all similarly

placed incumbents without forcing them to come

to the Courts; and sixthly, after following the

judgement in case of Shyam Lal Shukla, another

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 65 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of
Pianu

Ram
(supra) and by the Punjab and Haryana High

Court in case of
Sunil Soni
(supra), granted

.

regularization or deemed regularization so as to

enable retiree for pensionary benefits for having

rendered decades of temporary service after being

granted temporary status then, deceased employee

of

-Mehar Chand was entitled for the same treatment,

which has been overlooked by the Learned Tribunal;

rt
and seventhly, the rights acquired and the effect

and applicability of the settled law cannot in

any manner be curtailed or restricted or negated

by the Respondents; and eighthly, the denial of

regularization for want of vacancy speaks volumes

of inaction of respondents, when, the creation of

a post was an act to be performed by the

respondents over which the employee had no say;

and ninthly, creation of posts for regularization in

normal parlance, may be an administrative act,

but in fact-situation of the instant case, once Rule

154-A and judgments of the Honble Supreme Court

in the case of Jagrit Mazdoor Union and similar

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 66 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

directions in case of Shyam Lal Shukla mandates

to confer "temporary status" after completion of

one year of continuous service as casual labourer

.

with 240 days (which was 206 days in offices

with five days week) and then to bring "temporary

employees on regular establishment" and in treating

temporary employees as "regular employees". The

of
conferment of temporary status was ignored and

it was after judicial intervention that Respondents
rt
issued an order on 11.08.2011 (at page 47 of

paper book) granting temporary status to deceased

employee-Mehar Chand w.e.f. 29.11.1989 (at page

47 of paper book). After issuance of the orders

dated 11.08.2011, the Respondents were under

an obligation to create the posts (if not available)

so as to bring such "temporary employees on

regular establishment" and in treating temporary

employees as "regular employees." Such an accrued

right to be considered for regularization cannot be

frustrated or defeated due to the inaction and

lethargy of in respondents, in "not creating posts"

for giving effect to regularization of the deceased

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 67 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

employee, Mehar Chand and all others, after grant

of temporary status on 11.08.2011 retrospectively

despite having rendered more than two decades

.

{23 years' service}; and tenthly, the Respondents

have not placed on record any cogent and convincing

as to what prevented the authorities from creating

the post (if not available) for regularizing deceased

of
petitioner-Mehar Chand and others after issuance

of orders on 11.08.2011 till his superannuation
rt
on 08.06.2012; and lastly, even the plea of the

Respondents that Moti Ram-junior was regularized

in November 2012 after the retirement of Mehar

Chand on 08.06.2012, goes on to establish that

Respondents have slept over the matter, remained

negligent, failed to take effective and timely action

for creating the posts for regularization, with the

intent to defeat the de-facto and dejure right of

consideration and resultant regularization, which

had accrued under the Rules and settled law, as

discussed hereinabove. It is not the case of the

Respondents-Authorities that the petitioner had not

rendered more than 23 years of temporary service.

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 68 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

It is not the case of Respondents that service

record was not upto the mark. It is not the case

of the Respondents that aforesaid employee-Mehar

.

Chand was not entitled for "being brought on

regular establishment and to be treated as regular

employee in terms of the Rules and settled law

and it is not disputed that in similar fact-situation,

of
the benefits of regularization/deemed regularization

has been granted extended to Shyam Lal Shukla
rt
and to
Pianu Ram and Sunil Soni
(supra) by

Respondents. The fundamental right of consideration

and resultant regularization which had accrued

on the basis of Rule 154-A and settled law could

neither not be defeated, restricted or negated due

to inaction and omission of Respondents in not

taking effective and timely steps for creating posts,

so as to make the accrued right meaningful and

practicable. Inaction of not creating the posts for

regularization reveals exploitative practice, which

smacks of unreasonableness and arbitrariness in

action, only to deprive the deceased employee-Mehar

Chand of regularization prior to retirement on

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 69 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

08.08.2012. Ignoring these material aspects, the

Impugned Order dated 28.10.2015, {Annexure P-5},

passed by disallowing the claim of Mehar Chand

.

for regularization is interdicted by this Court.

21. Resultantly, the deceased employee-Mehar

Chand is held entitled for regularization/deemed

regularization prior to his retirement on 08.06.2012

of
in view of having rendered more than two decades

of service rendered after grant of temporary status
rt
on 23.11.1989 till his retirement on 08.06.2012.

Treating an employee on temporary service amounts

to creating a class on basis of mere nomenclature

or designation, ignoring the fact that the service

performed by employee had the hallmark of regular

service in terms of work, job, duties and functions.

Mere status or nomenclature cannot be made the

basis for denying benefits and protections, including

pensionary benefits. Such deprivation is arbitrary

and violates fundamental rights as guaranteed by

Articles 14
and
and reiterating of such right

by the Honble Supreme Court in the cases of

Yashwant Hari Katakkar, Rajkaran and Dharam

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 70 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

Singh (supra).

22. Accordingly, the Impugned Order dated

28.10.2015 (Annexure P-5) disallowing the claim

.

of deceased petitioner-Mehar Chand for regularization

is set-aside; and non-adjudication of the claim of

the deceased employee, Mehar Chand for pensionary

benefits w.e.f. 08.06.2012/01.07.2012 and the right

of
and claim of the present petitioner no 1, Soma Devi

for family pension w.e.f 28.01.2015 in applicable
rt
pay scale-pay band and in revised pay scale w.e.f.

01.01.2016 with pension fixation benefits from due

date, with all consequential benefits.

23. Besides the above, it is clarified that the

case of the petitioners 2 and 3, namely, Raju Verma

and Sunil Kumar, being sons of deceased Original

Applicant, for family pension, may be examined in

the light of applicable rules and subject to eligibility,

admissible share of family pension, be released, if

any, in accordance with law.

24. No other point was argued/pressed.

DIRECTIONS:

25. In view of the above discussion and for

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 71 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

the reasons recorded hereinabove, instant petition

is allowed, in following terms:-

(i) The Impugned Order dated 28.10.2015
[Annexure P-5] passed by Learned Central

.

Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench

in Original Application No .063/00161/
2014, in Re;
Soma Devi and others versus

Union of India and others
, is quashed and
set aside;

of

(ii) Respondents are directed to consider and
grant regularization or deemed regularization
to the deceased Original Applicant, Mehar
Chand, either by creating post or against
rt available posts prior to superannuation ;

(iii). Respondents are directed to grant all the
pensionary benefits to the deceased Original
Applicant-Mehar Chand upon superannuation

w.e.f. 08.06.2012/01.07.2012 till his death
on 28.01.2015 and to grant resultant Family
Pension to present petitioner No. 1 [Soma

Devi], being widow, w.e.f. 28.01.2015 and
pay fixation benefits in the applicable

pay scale and the revised scales with all
consequential benefits;

(iv) Respondents shall examine the claim of
petitioners No.2 and 3, namely, Raju Verma
and Sunil Kumar, being sons of Deceased
Petitioner-Original Applicant, Mehar Chand,
for family pension and to release admissible
share of family pension, if found eligible
and entitled for same, in accordance with
law ;

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS

- 72 - ( 2025:HHC:39462-DB )

(v) Respondents Authorities are directed to

ensure compliance of this order within six
weeks from today;

(vi) Failure to release benefits shall entitle the

.

petitioners for interest @ 6% per annum

thereafter till realization; and

(vi) Parties to bear their respective costs.

In aforesaid terms, the present petition

of
along with all pending miscellaneous application(s),

if any, shall stand disposed of.

rt

(G.S. Sandhawalia) (Ranjan Sharma)
Chief Justice Judge

November 21, 2025

[Bhardwaj]

::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:46:24 :::CIS