CASUAL LABOURER WITH TEMPORARY STATUS ENTITLED TO FAMILY PENSION AS REGULAR EMPLOYEE.

The applicant, Hewanti Devi, is the widow of Late Mithai Lal, who was appointed as a Sweeper (Casual Labour) on January 8, 1995, in the office of the Divisional Officer, Ghazipur.

He was granted temporary status on September 9, 1996.

The Department of Post, Ministry of Communication, Delhi, granted the benefit of wages based on Pay Band-I with Grade Pay of Rs. 1800/- effective January 1, 2006, to Casual Labourers with temporary status of Group 'D' in Ghazipur Division, and Mithai Lal's name was listed at Sr. No. 18.

Mithai Lal worked until April 21, 2021, when he died in harness after more than 26 years of service.

After his death, the applicant applied for family pension, but no action was taken.

The applicant then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) through Original Application No. 677/2023, which was disposed of on August 29, 2023, with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation within one month via a speaking order.

In compliance, the respondents rejected the applicant's claim for family pension on September 19, 2023, stating that Mithai Lal had only temporary status and was never regularized against a Group 'D' post, thus not entitled to pensionary benefits.

The respondents' counter-affidavit, filed on November 13, 2024, reiterated that Mithai Lal was a part-time casual labour/contingent paid sweeper, granted temporary status but not regularized, and therefore, not eligible for pensionary benefits as per instructions from DG Post New Delhi and Chief Postmaster General UP Circle Lucknow.

The applicant filed a rejoinder affidavit on September 11, 2025, reiterating her claims.

1. Whether the impugned order dated September 19, 2023, passed by the Superintendent of Post Office, Division Ghazipur, rejecting the applicant's claim for pension, should be quashed?

2. Whether the respondent-3 should be directed to release family pension to the applicant?

3. Whether the husband of the applicant, granted temporary status on September 9, 1996, should be treated as a regular employee for the purpose of receiving pensionary benefits?

The court primarily applied the principles derived from Supreme Court and High Court judgments concerning the regularization and pensionary benefits of temporary casual labourers with temporary status.

Key precedents included Jagrit Majdoor Union and Others v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and Others (1990 Supp SCC 113), which directed the implementation of the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status in Regularisation) Scheme, 1991, for regularization and benefits.

The court also relied on the CAT Allahabad order in Shyam Lal Shukla v. Union of India (O.A. No. 1626/2005), affirmed by the Allahabad High Court (2012 (1) ADJ 698) and the Supreme Court (SLP (C) No. 12264/2012), which held that services of an employee in similar circumstances are deemed regularized, entitling them to post-retiral benefits, especially under Rule 154A of the Manual of Appointment and Allowances of the Officers of the Indian Post & Telegraphs Department.

Furthermore, the court cited Chandi Lal v. U.O.I. & Ors. (O.A. No. 917/2004), (Writ Petition No. 11297/2006, 2007 AHC 2752 DB), affirmed by the Supreme Court (SLP (Civil) No. 3248/2008), which similarly concluded that employees with temporary status, deemed equal to Group 'D' employees, are entitled to pension despite lack of formal regularization.

A recent Allahabad High Court Division Bench order in Union of India & Ors. v. Heera Lal & Anrs. (Writ (A) Petition No. 10505/2023) was also considered, emphasizing protection for citizens who have dedicated their productive lives to government service.

The court analyzed the facts in light of established legal precedents, noting that the husband of the applicant, Late Mithai Lal, worked for over 26 years and was granted temporary status on September 9, 1996.

The respondents rejected the family pension claim solely on the ground of non-regularization against a Group 'D' post.

However, the court found this position untenable, citing the 1990 Supreme Court directive in Jagrit Majdoor Union for implementing the regularization scheme.

The tribunal emphasized that Clause 6 of the 1991 scheme states that 50% of service rendered under temporary status would be counted for retirement benefits after regularization as a regular Group 'D' official.

Crucially, the court relied on the Shyam Lal Shukla and Chandi Lal judgments, which, having been affirmed by the Supreme Court, settled that such employees, though lacking formal regularization, are deemed to have been regularized and are entitled to all pensionary benefits.

The Shyam Lal Shukla case specifically interpreted Rule 154A of the Manual of Appointment and Allowances of Officers of the Indian Post & Telegraphs Department to mean that employees with long, uninterrupted service, even drawing from contingent funds, should be treated as "regular employees" for pensionary benefits.

The Allahabad High Court's ruling in Heera Lal reinforced this approach, highlighting the need to protect citizens who have dedicated their lives to government service from technicalities.

Therefore, the court concluded that Mithai Lal, having been granted temporary status since September 9, 1996, should be treated as a regular Group 'D' employee from that date for pensionary benefits.

The impugned order dated September 19, 2023, rejecting the applicant's claim, is quashed and set aside.

The respondents are directed to ensure the payment of family pension and other post-retiral benefits to the applicant, treating Late Mithai Lal as a regular appointee in Group 'D' from September 9, 1996, within three months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

The respondents are further directed to ensure the regular monthly family pension to the applicant.

There shall be no order as to costs.