Continuous temporary-status service without formal regularisation qualifies for family pension and retiral benefits.

The applicant’s husband was engaged as a Contingency Paid Chowkidar in the Department of Posts on 4 September 1978 and was granted temporary status by order dated 29 November 1989.

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

He died in service on 31 October 2017.

The applicant submitted a representation seeking family pension and other terminal benefits, which was forwarded for consideration but was not acted upon.

The respondents admitted his engagement and grant of temporary status but contended that he had never been formally regularised in the Group ‘D’ cadre and was therefore not entitled to pensionary or retirement benefits.

The applicant accordingly filed the present application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Whether an employee granted temporary status and continuously engaged as a Contingency Paid Chowkidar could be treated as a regular employee for pensionary and other retiral benefits despite the absence of a formal regularisation order.

Whether the applicant, as the widow of the deceased employee, was entitled to family pension, arrears and other terminal benefits.

The Tribunal applied Rule 154(a) of the Post and Telegraph Establishment/Ministerial Manual, which provides that selected categories of whole-time contingency-paid staff, including Chowkidars, who work alongside regular or work-charged employees should be brought on the regular establishment and treated as regular employees.

The Tribunal 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, holding that Rule 154(a) does not require a formal regularisation order where the employee’s service falls within the rule.

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 for a temporary-status Group ‘D’ employee despite the absence of formal regularisation.

The governing principle was that technical non-issuance of a regularisation order cannot defeat pensionary rights where the employee rendered uninterrupted service, was treated as part of the departmental establishment and received service benefits.

The Tribunal found that the deceased employee was not merely a daily-wage worker: he had been granted temporary status in 1989, had continued in service without interruption, and had received several benefits ordinarily associated with departmental employment.

There was no material showing discontinuity of service or unsatisfactory performance.

Applying Rule 154(a), the Tribunal held that a Chowkidar working alongside regular employees was required to be treated as a regular employee, and that the absence of a separate formal regularisation order was not decisive.

The reasoning in Shyam Lal Shukla and Chandi Lal was considered applicable because the material facts were substantially similar—long, uninterrupted service, temporary status and receipt of regular service benefits.

Consequently, the respondents’ objection based solely on the absence of formal regularisation was held to be technical and insufficient to deny the applicant family pension and other retiral benefits.

The deceased employee’s services were deemed to have been regularised, and the respondents were directed to grant the applicant family pension and all other retiral benefits, including arrears, by treating him as a regular employee.

The directions were to be complied with 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 associated miscellaneous applications were disposed of.