Long-term service under temporary status entitles employees to pensionary benefits under the doctrine of deemed regularization.

The applicant was initially appointed as a Contingency Paid (C.P.) Chaukidar on 01.12.1979 under the Superintendent of Post Offices, Mirzapur

He was granted "Temporary Status" effective from 29.11.1989 and was subsequently treated at par with regular Group ‘D’ staff regarding pay and allowances from 30.04.1995

The applicant retired on 31.01.2013 after rendering approximately 35 years of service

Despite his long tenure, the respondents denied him pensionary and retiral benefits on the ground that his services were never formally regularized

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking a direction for the grant of full pensionary benefits with interest

1. Whether an employee granted "Temporary Status" and treated at par with Group ‘D’ staff is entitled to pensionary benefits despite the absence of a formal regularization order

2. Whether the continuous service rendered by a Contingency Paid employee after the grant of temporary status qualifies as regular service for the purpose of retiral benefits

The court primarily applied the Casual Labours (Grant of Temporary Status in Regularization) Scheme, 1991, formulated by the Department of Post in compliance with Supreme Court directions in Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

Rule 154A of the Manual of Appointment and Allowances of the Officers of the Indian Post and Telegraph Department, which stipulates that staff such as Chaukidars and Sweepers in work-charged establishments should be brought onto the regular establishment and treated as "regular employees" for pensionary purposes

The court followed the precedents set in Union of India v. Shyam Lal Shukla (2012) and Chandi Lal v. Union of India (2008), which established that employees with temporary status who serve continuously are deemed regularized for the purpose of pension

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s "Temporary Status" as of 29.11.1989 and his continuous service until superannuation in 2013 were undisputed

Relying on the interpreted scope of Rule 154A in Shyam Lal Shukla, the court reasoned that the rule intends to provide pensionary benefits to specific classes of employees as "regular employees" notwithstanding the lack of a formal regularization order

The court noted that the applicant had been receiving benefits equivalent to regular Group ‘D’ staff for years

Consequently, the court held that since the issue was already settled by the High Court and Supreme Court in similar matters (e.g., Heera Lal case), the respondents could not rely on procedural technicalities to deny benefits to a citizen who had dedicated his entire productive life to the Department

The respondents were directed to ensure the payment of pension and all post-retiral benefits within three months

Regarding the 11-year delay in filing the O.A., the Tribunal restricted the interest at 6% per annum to only the three years preceding the date of filing

No order as to costs was made