D K MOHANTA vs D/o Post

1 O.A.No. 260/00629 of 2016

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

O.A.No. 260/00629 of 2016

Reserved on 25.08.2026 Pronounced on 31.08.2026

CORAM:
THE HON’BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON’BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Dipti Kumar Mahanta, aged about 48 years,
S/o Late Rai Mohan Mahanta, At-Bada
Brahamanamara, PO-Pathara Chakuli,
ViaLaxmiposi, Dist-Mayurbhanj, now working
as Casual Labour, mail Escort, Baripada-Deuli
Line.
……Applicant
VERSUS

1. Union of India, represented through its
Secretary-cum-Director General of Posts, Dak
Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110116.

2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle,
At/PO-Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurda-751001.

3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Mayurbhanj
Divsiion, At/POBaripada, Dist-Mayurbhanj –
757001.

4. Head Post Master, Baripada head Post Office,
At/PO-Baripada HPO, Dist-Mayurbhanj-
757001.

5. Inspector of Posts Baripada West Sub
division, At/PO-Baripada, Dist-Mayurbhanj-
757001.
……Respondents

For the applicant : Mr. N.R.Routray, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. R.S.Pattnaik, Counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:47:49 +05'30'

2 O.A.No. 260/00629 of 2016

O R D E R

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
This OA was dismissed vide order dated 21.01.2021 and
the same was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa
in W.P.(C) No. 5399/2021. The Hon’ble High Court of Orissa vide
order dated 13.01.2026 quashed the order and remitted the
order to this Bench for consideration afresh. Accordingly, this OA
was restored to its file and reheard afresh.
2. The case of the applicant in nutshell is that he was
appointed as Casual labourer on 27.06.1988. On 12.04.1991
department introduced the scheme to regularize those casual
labourers who had rendered 206/240 days service as on
29.11.1989. Since he was not regularized, he along with some
others filed OA 80/1997 before this Tribunal which was
disposed of on 06.02.1997 directing respondent No.2 to dispose
of the representation within a period of three months. Since the
order of this Bench was not complied with, he filed OA
341/1999, which was also disposed of on 23.03.2003 with
direction to the respondents to take immediate action to mitigate
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:47:49 +05'30'

3 O.A.No. 260/00629 of 2016

his hardship, grant him temporary status from the date it was
due as per the scheme and to give him the benefit of seniority
according to the date of his initial appointment as casual
labourer including other consequential service benefits wages
etc. as due and admissible under that scheme. The said order was
challenged by the Respondents before Hon’ble High Court in
WP(C) No. 8723/2004, which was dismissed vide order dated
28.9.2005. The applicant again approached this Bench in OA
595/2011 which was disposed of vide order dated 11.10.2011
with direction to respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of his
representation dated 20.06.2010.
3. The applicant also submitted that his co-applicants in OA
80/1997 were regularized after conferment of temporary status
but he is waiting since 1992 for conferment of temporary status
and consequential regularization in Group D/MTS. He further
filed OA 772/2015 which was disposed of on 09.11.2015 with
direction for consideration of his representation dated
13.07.2015. Respondent No.3 vide order dated 29.01.2016
rejected his case on the ground that he had worked only for six
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:47:49 +05'30'

4 O.A.No. 260/00629 of 2016

hours and his initial engagement was not through Employment
Exchange. Being aggrieved by such order dated 29.01.2016, he
filed this OA praying inter alia to quash the said order and to
direct the respondents to implement the order passed in OA No.
341/1999 in its letter and spirit. He has also prayed for direction
to the respondents to pay interest on the entire arrears as per
GPF rate of interest as if the salary was kept in GPF and the same
may be recovered from the officers at fault and further impose
heavy cost on Res No. 3 for harassing a poor casual labourer for
last 25 years.
4. Respondents filed their counter stating inter alia that, on
27.06.1988, the applicant was engaged to escort mails in
Baripada-Deoli line in Private buses. Since there was no
sanctioned post of either departmental or extra-departmental
mail escort, he was engaged to escort mails, temporarily on daily
rate basis. He filed OA 80/1997 seeking conferment of
temporary status, which was disposed of with direction for
consideration of his representation. Accordingly, respondents
department considered his case but rejected the same on the
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:47:49 +05'30'

5 O.A.No. 260/00629 of 2016

ground that he did not fulfill the conditions prescribed in OM
dated 12.04.1994 being not engaged through Employment
Exchange and, that, he was engaged on 27.06.1988 as a part time
casual labourer i.e. after the crucial date of 07.06.1988 that too
only for six hours instead of eight hours a day as required under
the OM. He again filed OA 341/1999, which was also disposed of
on 23.04.2003 directing the respondents to take immediate
action to mitigate the hardship of the applicant and grant
temporary status on the applicant from the date it was due as per
the scheme and to give him the benefit of seniority according to
the date of his initial appointment as casual labourer and all
other consequential service benefits etc. as due and admissible
under that scheme, which was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court
of Orissa vide order dated 28.09.2005 but the said order was not
received by them and they obtained the certified copy after ten
(10) years only when they came to know in another OA No.
772/2015. It is stated that S/Sh Bhabasankar Samal and Sanatan
Nayak were engaged for Escorting Mails in different two Mail
Lines and they were performing duties for 8 hours or more a day
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:47:49 +05'30'

6 O.A.No. 260/00629 of 2016

being engaged prior to the crucial date 07.06.1988, hence, they
were regularized vide letter dated 15.04.1998 and, therefore, the
case of the applicant is not same and similar to those persons as
claimed by the applicant. Sri Radhakanta Das, who was working
for 8 hours a day was granted temporary status by virtue of the
order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 01.08.2014. The
respondents have submitted that in view of the foregoing
discussions the applicant is not entitled to get temporary status
and the present OA being devoid of any merit is liable to be
dismissed.
5. According to Ld. Counsel for the applicant, one Sri Ranjan
Kumar Nayak, who was similarly situated person as that of him,
approached this Bench in OA No. 372/2019 and this Bench
allowed his grievance vide order dated 12.04.2021 and, the
present one being one and the same, the applicant is entitled to
the relief claimed in this OA. But, the case of the applicant did not
receive due consideration though both of them stood on the
same footing. Accordingly, he has prayed for the relief claimed in
this OA. Respondents did not filed any evidence that the order
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:47:49 +05'30'

7 O.A.No. 260/00629 of 2016

dated 12.04.2021 in OA No. 372/2019 has been reversed by
higher forum or in review by this Bench. The relevant portion of
the order dated 12.04.2021 in OA No. 372/2019 of this Bench is
quoted herein below:
“10. Although the claim of the applicant that he has
been working for 8½ hours per day in the organization
is not accepted by the respondents and the same is
also not supported by any satisfactory documents to
that effect. Still then the submission of the learned
counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been
working for about 4 hours per day is not denied by the
respondents (Annexure A/3). In the Counter itself it
has been admitted that the respondents have
enhanced his pay as seen from Annexure A/3, taking
into consideration the work load of the applicant to be
4 hours 10 minutes per day. The said benefit of
enhanced pay in respect of the applicant has not been
considered, is not specifically pleaded. But it appears
from the record that the period of 480 days of working
of the applicant for more than 4 hours has already been
completed and therefore as per guidelines, the
applicant is entitled for conferment of temporary
status. The subsequent statement that the experience
certificate submitted by the applicant and educational
certificate submitted are fake, need not be gone into
and cannot be used against the applicant, solely when
he has prayed for conferment of temporary status
which has already become due in his favour. Therefore
there is much force in the submission of the learned
counsel for the applicant that no such educational
qualification was required for engagement of the
applicant in the respondent organization to work as a
Sweeper and the respondents have not come out with
specific rules/circulars to show that any minimum
educational qualification is required for the applicant
to be engaged as Sweeper when he joined in 1988. The
further submission of learned counsel for the applicant
that no such experience certificate with subsequent
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:47:49 +05'30'

8 O.A.No. 260/00629 of 2016

manipulation or endorsement made by the
respondents (Annexure R/8) was required to be used
in favour of the applicant. Therefore the allegations
said to have been made against the applicant at this
belated stage before this Tribunal cannot take away
the right of the applicant for conferment of temporary
status in his favour.

11. It is the specific case of the applicant that the
applicant’s in OA No. 819 of 1994 disposed of on 23rd
November, 2000 were also part time casual workers of
the Postal Department like the present applicant and,
after considering pros and cons of all aspects of the
matter, this Bench of the Tribunal, ultimately, directed
to confer temporary status on the said applicant’s in
terms of the scheme dated 12.04.1991 and with
conferment of temporary status, the applicants, therein
shall be entitled to the benefit given to such temporary
status workers under the Scheme. Needless to state
that the order of this Bench was upheld by the Hon’ble
High Court of Orissa in OJC No. 5246 of 2001 disposed
of on 29.03.2010 after which the Department have
granted the benefits to the applicants therein.

12. It is the specific case of the Respondents both in the
order of rejection dated 25.04.2019 under Annexure
A/12 as also in the counter that the said orders do not
support to the prayer of the applicant as these orders
only have limited and selective application and do not
have automatic universal application to all the similarly
situated persons. Only order notified by Government
in obedience to the said orders will enjoy the status of
universal application. It has further been stated that
being devoid of any such notification by the
government or modification of rules, the relief granted
to some other applicants by the Tribunal cannot be
automatically extended to the present applicant.

12. On examination of the order dated 23rd November,
2000 in OA No. 819 of 1994 and records of the present
case as also from the stand taken by the Respondents,
one thing is clear that the status of the applicants in
both the OAs are same and similar, but the
Respondents did not extend the benefit of the OA No.
819 of 1994 in respect of the present applicant as the
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:47:49 +05'30'

9 O.A.No. 260/00629 of 2016

said orders only have limited and selective application
and do not have automatic universal application to all
the similarly situated persons in absence of specific
order of the Government. From the above, it is
imperative that the Respondent Department will
extend the benefit of the OA No. 819 of 1994 in the
event such a direction is issued by the
Tribunal/Competent Authority.

13. From the discussion made above, we quash the
order of rejection dated 24.04.2019 under Annexure
A/12 and direct the respondents to confer temporary
status on the applicant in terms of the scheme dated
12.04.1991 within a period of 90 (ninety) days from the
date of receipt of copy of this order with further
direction that with conferment of temporary status, the
applicant shall be entitled to the benefit given to such
temporary status workers under the scheme.

14. In the result, therefore, this OA is allowed in terms
of the observation and direction made above but
without any order as to cost. All the MAs accordingly
stand disposed of.”

6. On examination of the order dated 12.04.2021 in OA No.
372/2019, quoted above, vis a vis the case in hand, we find that
the case of the applicant deserves favourable consideration in
the light of the direction given by this Bench in the OA No.
372/2019. Accordingly, the order dated 29.01.2016 is hereby
quashed. The respondents are directed to confer temporary
status on the applicant in terms of the scheme dated 12.04.1991
within a period of 90 (ninety) days from the date of receipt of
copy of this order with further direction that with conferment of
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:47:49 +05'30'

10 O.A.No. 260/00629 of 2016

temporary status, the applicant shall be entitled to the benefit
given to such temporary status workers under the scheme.
7. In the result, the OA stands allowed to the extent stated
above. Pending MA, if any, stands disposed of. Costs made easy.

(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)






RK/PS













RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:47:49 +05'30'