Continuous temporary-status service entitles dependants to family pension despite absence of formal regularisation.

The applicant, widow of Late Subedar Tripathi, sought family pension and other retiral benefits arising from her husband’s service with the Department of Posts.

He was appointed as a Contingency Paid Chowkidar on 29 November 1980 and was granted temporary status on 29 November 1989.

During his service, he received benefits including earned leave, casual leave, annual increments, bonus, LTC and GPF deductions.

He continued to work without any recorded break until his death in service on 18 September 2011.

The applicant submitted a representation dated 29 May 2024 claiming pension and retiral benefits, but no decision was taken, leading to the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The respondents contended that the deceased employee had never been formally regularised in the Group ‘D’ cadre and was therefore not entitled to pensionary benefits applicable to regular employees.

1. Whether a Contingency Paid Chowkidar who was granted temporary status and served continuously for approximately 22 years, but was not formally regularised in the Group ‘D’ cadre, could be treated as a regular employee for pensionary purposes.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to family pension, arrears and other retiral benefits of her deceased husband despite the absence of a formal order of regularisation.

3. Whether the respondents’ failure to grant such benefits warranted payment of interest.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, concerning jurisdiction to entertain service-related applications.

It relied principally on Rule 154(a) of the Post and Telegraph Establishment Manual, which provides that specified whole-time contingency-paid staff, including Chowkidars, working alongside regular employees should be brought onto the regular establishment and treated as “regular employees”.

The Tribunal further relied on Union of India v. Shyam Lal Shukla, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60272 of 2009, Allahabad High Court, decided on 23 December 2011, which held that Rule 154(a) confers regular-employee status for pensionary purposes even without a formal regularisation order.

It also relied on Chandi Lal v. Union of India, O.A. No. 917 of 2004, CAT Allahabad, affirmed by the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court, recognising pension entitlement where a temporary-status employee had rendered continuous service and received benefits associated with Group ‘D’ employment despite the absence of formal regularisation.

The Tribunal found that the deceased employee was not merely a casual daily-wage worker: he had been granted temporary status by the Department, had served continuously for about 22 years, and had received various employment-related benefits, including GPF facilities.

Applying Rule 154(a), the Tribunal held that the nature and duration of his service, together with the Department’s treatment of him as an employee, brought him within the category of persons entitled to be treated as regular employees for pensionary purposes.

Following Shyam Lal Shukla and Chandi Lal, the Tribunal rejected the respondents’ technical objection that no formal regularisation order had been issued.

Since there was no evidence of interruption, unsatisfactory service or discontinuation, denial of family pension merely on the ground of non-regularisation was held unjustified.

The Tribunal directed that the services of the applicant’s deceased husband be deemed to have been regularised and ordered the respondents to grant the applicant family pension, arrears and all other retiral benefits treating him as a regular employee.

The benefits were to be paid within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the order; failing compliance, penal interest at 6% per annum would apply.

No order was made as to costs, and all connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of.