Sunder Singh vs Union Of India Through And Ors

Briefly stated, the facts of the current O.A. are that the applicant was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Agra Division and joined Department of Posts in Agra Division in the capacity of contingency paid chowkidar in group-D on consolidated salary on 14.02.1979. The applicant was granted temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989 in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940. The applicant served the Department of Posts for about 35 years in the same capacity and retired on 31.03.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation.

Names for regularization of temporary status employees were asked for from subordinate offices by Sr. Supdt. Of Post Offices, Agra. The applicant placed his grievance in the Staff Adalat held on 15.09.2009. The applicant also submitted an application dated 22.01.2013 for promotion in Group-D under OBC quota, but all in vain. When the applicant was not granted pensionary benefits, he submitted a representation dated 07.10.2013. The said representation was turned down by respondent No.3 vide impugned order dated 21.01.2014 without placing the same before the Competent Authority. A Corrigendum dated 30.12.2014 was issued by the respondents wherein it has been stated that the word used "retired" may be read as "disengaged".

Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has filed the current O.A. seeking the following relief:-

"To allow the OA and quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 21.01.2014 and 30.12.2014 [(Annex.A-1(colly)] and consequently direct the respondents to grant him pensionary benefits and release pension accordingly w.e.f. 01.04.2013 with interest @18% p.a. compounded annually treating him regular/permanent employee."

In the counter reply filed on behalf of respondents, it is stated that the applicant was engaged as contingency paid temporary status chowkidar w.e.f. 14.02.1979. The applicant was granted temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989. As per DoP&T O.M. No. 49014/2004-Estt(C) dated 26.04.2004 and circulated vide Postal Directorate New Delhi letter dated 29.04.2005, the length of qualifying service for the purpose of retirement benefits has lost its relevance and no credit of casual service shall be available to the casual labourers on their regularization against Gr.D post on or after 01.01.2004. The said O.M. also contains instruction for no further deduction towards GPF from casual labourers w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and refund of GPF from casual labourers w.e.f. 01.01.2004 of the balance lying in their GPF account to them.

The respondents state that regularization of casual labourers is subject to availability of post/approval of competent authority for filling of vacancies as per seniority after fulfilling the requisite terms and conditions. 25% vacancies approved by Circle Office, Lucknow for CP (T/S) quota were received for the years as 2009 (UR-01), 2010 (UR-01), 2011 (OBC-01), 2012 (UR-01 & SWC 01) and 2013 (UR-01). On the basis of selection-cum-seniority, appointment of Contingency Paid (Temporary Status) employees was made to MTS cadre through the Departmental Selection Committee as per seniority list on availability of approved vacancies.

The applicant had submitted a representation dated 22.01.2013 for his regularization but he could not be considered for regularization in MTS cadre as he was junior to the other contingency paid temporary status casual labourer employees. He was also discharged from the service on 31.03.2013. Therefore, he is not entitled for any pensionary benefits as per rules.

The applicant in the rejoinder has relied upon the judgments of the Tribunal passed in OA-1842/2016 (Smt. Shashi Vs. UOI & Ors.) dated 09.10.2017, OA-4226/2015 (Kuntesh Vs. UOI & Anr.) dated 31.01.2018 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yashwant Hari Katakar Vs. UOI & Ors., (1996) 7 SCC 113. It is submitted that the issue whether temporary status employees after three years of service would become entitled to such benefits as are admissible to Group-D employees on regular basis, has clearly been decided through the aforementioned citations and the same benefit cannot be denied to the applicant in the OA.

I have gone through the facts of the case carefully. I am of the considered view that the case of the applicant in this OA is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the relied upon citations.

In view of the aforesaid, the O.A. is allowed. The respondents are directed to examine the case of the applicant in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in OA-1842/2016 (Smt. Shashi Vs. UOI & Ors.) referred to above wherein benefits admissible to group-D employees on regular basis have been decided to be given to temporary status employees after three years of service. In my opinion, same view holds the field and shall apply to the present case as well.

The O.A. is allowed. Orders dated 21.01.2014 and 30.12.2014 are set aside. The respondents are directed to decide the case of the applicant within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. I am, however, not inclined to grant any interest. No costs.