RAM LAL vs POST UP CIRCLE

Reserved on 01.09.2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD

RD
Dated: This the 03 day of September 2026

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Original Application No. 1330/00644/2023

Ram Lal aged about 60 years, son of Shiv Murat Ram, R/o Kaithapur
(Lakhampur), Post Mughalsarai, District Chandauli.
………..Applicant

By Adv: Shri B.N Singh/Smt. Shyama Singh

V E R S U S
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Communication,
(P&T) Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.

2. The Chief Post Master General, UP Circle, Lucknow.

3. The Sr. Of Post Offices, East Division, Varanasi
. .Respondents

By Adv: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan

O R D E R
The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of
the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-

“(i) To issue a suitable order or direction to the respondents to pay the monthly
pension with arrears with panel interest 12%.
(ii) To issue a suitable order or direction to the respondents to pay the all
MANISH KUMAR
consequential service post retiral benefits with panel interest 12%.
SRIVASTAVA
(iii) To issue any other suitable order or direction as this Hon’ble Tribunal may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.
(iv) To award cost of the petition in favor of the applicant”.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as a
Contingency Paid Chowkidar on 06.09.1986 in Mughalsarai Post Office.
He was granted temporary status vide order dated 10.07.1991. During his
service, he was granted earned leave, casual leave, annual increments,
Bonus and LTC facilities. GPF contributions were also deducted from his
salary. Thereafter, on the recommendation of the DPC held on 19.09.2022,

2

the applicant was appointed/promoted to the post of MTS on the basis of
seniority-cum-fitness against the vacancy year 2022. He joined as MTS at
Head Post Office, Varanasi, on 31.10.2022. After attaining the age of
superannuation, he retired from service on 31.01.2023. Thus, he had
completed about 36 years of continuous service. The applicant submitted a
representation dated 03.03.2023 seeking pension and other retiral benefits,
but no decision was taken on his representation. Being aggrieved, the
applicant has filed the present OA seeking grant of pension and all other
retiral benefits from the date of his retirement. The applicant claims that
since he was appointed as Contingency Paid Chowkidar on 06.09.1986 and
completed his entire service without any break, he should be treated as a
regular employee. He has further relied upon Clause 154(a) of the Posts and
Telegraphs Establishment Manual and claims that he is entitled to retiral
benefits at par with other Group ‘D’ employees.
3. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have stated that the
applicant was engaged as a Contingency Paid Chowkidar with effect from
06.09.1986 on daily-wage basis. He was granted temporary status vide
order dated 10.07.1991. Thereafter, on the recommendation of the DPC, the
applicant was appointed/promoted to the post of MTS on the basis of
seniority-cum-fitness against the vacancy year 2022, and he joined as MTS
at Head Post Office, Varanasi, on 31.10.2022. However, according to the
respondents, the applicant was not regularised in the Group ‘D’ cadre prior
to his appointment as MTS. Therefore, the respondents contend that he is
not entitled to retirement benefits applicable to permanent Group ‘D’
employees.
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
4. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed in which the applicant has
reiterated the same facts as stated in the OA and denied the contents of the
counter affidavit. Nothing new has been mentioned in the rejoinder
affidavit.

5. I have heard Sri Babu Nandan Singh, learned counsel for the
applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the
respondents and perused the record.

3

6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is seeking
regularization of his services on the ground that he had been granted
temporary status and on completion of more than 36 years of service
without break, he shall be deemed to be a regular employee and as per
clause 154(a) of Post and Telegraph establishment manual, he is entitled for
the retiral benefits at par with other Group ‘D’ employees. Learned counsel
for the applicant further argued that the applicant was subsequently
appointed/promoted to the post of MTS on the basis of seniority-cum-
fitness against the vacancy year 2022 and joined on 31.10.2022. He retired
from service on 31.01.2023 on attaining the age of superannuation.
However, despite having rendered about 36 years of continuous service, the
respondents have denied him pension and other retiral benefits. It was
further submitted that mere fact that the applicant was not formally
regularised in the Group ‘D’ cadre cannot be a ground to deny him
pensionary and other retiral benefits, particularly when he was granted
temporary status and was subsequently appointed/promoted as MTS on the
basis of seniority-cum-fitness. Thus, he argued that the OA be allowed and
the respondents be directed to grant pension and all other retiral benefits to
the applicant by taking into account his continuous service from
06.09.1986.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the claim of the
applicant and submitted that the applicant was initially engaged as a
Contingency Paid Chowkidar on daily-wage basis with effect from
06.09.1986. He was only granted temporary status vide order dated
10.07.1991 and was never regularised in the Group ‘D’ cadre. Learned
counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant was
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
appointed/promoted to the post of MTS only against the vacancy year 2022
on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness and joined as MTS on 31.10.2022.
Therefore, his service prior to his appointment as MTS cannot be treated as
regular service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits
applicable to regular Group ‘D’ employees. It was further submitted that
the applicant cannot claim the benefit of regular service only on the ground
that he had worked for a long period. The fact that the applicant was
granted certain service benefits during his engagement does not confer
upon him the status of a regular employee. Learned counsel also submitted

4

that since the applicant was not regularised in the Group ‘D’ cadre and
became an MTS only in 2022, his claim for pension and other retiral
benefits by counting his service from 06.09.1986 is not sustainable. Thus he
argued that the applicant is not entitled to claim pension and other retiral
benefits by treating his entire service from 06.09.1986 as regular service.
The OA is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
8. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the
record carefully.
9. The facts which are not in dispute are that the applicant was
appointed as a Contingency Paid Chowkidar on 06.09.1986 and was
granted temporary status vide order dated 10.07.1991. It is also not disputed
that the applicant continued to work in the department for about 36 years
without any break and was granted various service benefits, including
earned leave, casual leave, annual increments, Bonus, LTC and GPF
facility. He was thereafter appointed/promoted as MTS on the basis of
seniority-cum-fitness against the vacancy year 2022 and joined on
31.10.2022. He ultimately retired from service on 31.01.2023 on attaining
the age of superannuation.
10. The main objection of the respondents is that the applicant was never
formally regularised in the Group ‘D’ cadre and, therefore, his service prior
to his appointment as MTS cannot be counted for pensionary benefits. In
my opinion, the said objection cannot be accepted. The applicant was not
merely a daily-wage worker. He was granted temporary status by the
department itself in the year 1991 and thereafter continued in service for
more than three decades. The respondents also extended various service
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
benefits to him during this period. There is nothing on record to show that
the applicant's service was discontinued at any stage or that his work was
found unsatisfactory.
11. Post and Telegraph Ministerial Manual Establishment Rule 154 (a)
provides that “selected categories of whole time contingency paid staff,
such as Sweepers, Bhisties, Chowkidars, Chobdars, Mails or Gardeners,
Khalassis and such other categories as are expected to work side by side
with regular employees or with employees in work charged establishment,

5

should, for the present, be brought on to regular establishment of which
they form adjuncts and should be treated as “regular employees”.

12. The applicant by placing reliance upon para 154(a) of the Manual of
Appointment and Allowances of Officers of the Indian Posts and
Telegraphs Department contended that he is entitled for all retiral benefits
as may be admissible to comparable staff in the regular group ‘D’
employee.

13. In the case of Union of India and others Vs. Shyam Lal Shukla and
another in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60272 of 2009 decided on
23.12.2011 , Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad has observed as under:-
“From the perusal of Rule 154 A of Manual, it is manifestly clear that the Chowkidar,
Sweeper, Mails, 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 work ‘regular employee’
without any reference to formal order of regularization. The Tribunal has relied on
Rule 154 A of the Manual of appointment and allowances of the officers of Indian
Post and Telegraphs Department. It is, undisputed fact that the respondent 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 Govt. 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 Govt.
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.
10.04.1982 till his date of superannuation i.e. 30.06.2003 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
MANISH KUMAR
Petition before this Court and there is no mention that the work of the respondent
SRIVASTAVA
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 Vs. Union of India and others) as well as order
nd
dated 2 September, 2005 in Original Application No. 917/2004 (Chandi Lal Versus
Union of India). The aforesaid orders were on the record of the Tribunal as
Annexure AR-2 and AR-3 with affidavit filed on 26.08.2008 in similar facts.
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.”

6

14. In O.A No. 917/04 – Chandi Lal Vs. U.O.I and Ors. decided on
2.9.2005 by CAT, Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal, the applicant was
working in the Department of Posts on work charged establishment w.e.f.
15.4.1982. He was granted temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989 and
thereafter, he was brought on the pay scale of Group ‘D’ employee and also
accorded service benefits admissible to the Group ‘D’ employee. Though
no formal order of the regularisation was issued in the said case but the
Tribunal held that the applicant was entitled to pension treating him a
Group ‘D’ regular employee. The Writ Petition No. 11297/2006 filed
against the said order was dismissed by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court vide
order dated 02.03.2007 and Hon’ble Supreme Court also upheld the order
of Tribunal and High Court vide order dated 03.03.2008 passed in SLP
(Civil) case No. 11297/2006 (CC 3248/2008).

15. The facts and circumstances of above noted cases are almost similar
to the case in hand. In the instant case, the applicant was appointed as
Contingent Paid Chowkidar on 06.09.1986 and he was extended temporary
status on 10.07.1991 and thereafter continued in service without any break.
The respondents themselves permitted him to continue in service till his
superannuation and subsequently appointed/promoted him as MTS on the
basis of seniority-cum-fitness. Therefore, it would not be proper to deny
him pensionary benefits merely because no separate formal order of
regularisation in Group ‘D’ cadre was issued.

16. It is also important that the applicant had rendered about 36 years of
continuous service before his retirement. The respondents have not disputed
the fact of his continuous service or the grant of temporary status. Their
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
only objection is that there was no formal regularisation in Group ‘D’. Such
a technical objection cannot, in the facts of the present case, be permitted to
deprive the applicant of his pension and other retiral benefits, particularly
when the applicant was treated as an employee of the department for a very
long period and was also subsequently appointed/promoted as MTS.

17 Thus, relying upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble High Court
as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the O.A. is allowed and
applicant’s services shall be deemed to have been regularized, therefore, the

7

respondents are hereby directed to ensure payment of pension and other
post retiral benefits to the applicant along with simple interest @ 6% per
annum from the date it becomes due till the date of actual payment as
expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order, if already not paid. No order as to
costs. All associated MAs are disposed of.

(JUSTICE OM PRAKASH VII)
Member (J)
Manish
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA