Refusal of promotion posting does not negate pensionary eligibility of temporary status employees with continuous service.

The applicant’s late husband, Girish Chandra Upadhyaya, was engaged as a casual employee in the Department of Posts and granted Temporary Status (Group 'D') effective 01.01.1993.

He was later treated at par with Group 'D' employees from 16.01.2008 and promoted to the Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) cadre on 16.03.2015.

He died in service on 01.01.2018.

The respondents denied family pension and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG), contending that the deceased had refused his MTS promotion via a letter dated 07.09.2015 and, as he never joined the post, he was not a regular employee entitled to a pension.

The applicant argued that the deceased merely declined a specific posting due to personal family exigencies but did not refuse regularization or the promotion itself.

1. Whether the refusal of a specific posting following a promotion order constitutes a refusal of regularization, thereby forfeiting entitlement to pensionary benefits.

2. Whether a temporary status employee who dies in service after rendering more than ten years of continuous service is entitled to pension and death benefits under the relevant rules.

Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which stipulate that temporary Government servants are entitled to pension and death gratuity if they die while in service or have completed ten years of continuous service.

Department of Posts Letter No. 66-9/91-SPB.I (30.11.1992), which equates casual laborers with temporary status to temporary employees for pension purposes after ten years of service.

The court also followed the precedent set by the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 13117 of 2019, which held that declining a posting for personal reasons does not equate to declining regularization.

The Tribunal found that there were two distinct stages: the promotion order issued on 16.03.2015 and a subsequent posting order issued on 27.03.2015.

Upon reviewing the deceased’s letter dated 07.09.2015, the Tribunal observed that he only expressed an inability to comply with the posting due to his wife's illness and daughter’s marriage; he never explicitly refused "regularization".

Crucially, the Department allowed him to continue working for nearly three years after the promotion order until his death, without ever withdrawing the promotion memo.

Applying the principle from the Patna High Court, the Tribunal reasoned that occupancy of a post for decades cannot be disregarded based on a refusal of a specific transfer/posting.

Furthermore, under the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, the deceased’s continuous service of over 20 years and his death while in service mandated the grant of pensionary benefits regardless of formal confirmation, as there was no evidence of non-availability of vacancies for regularization over a 20-year period.

The respondents were directed to settle and release all death benefits, including DCRG, leave encashment, and Group Insurance, along with pension arrears, within three months.

The Tribunal further ordered the respondents to examine the applicant’s eligibility for family pension subsequent to the settlement of the deceased husband's pension case.

No interest or costs were awarded.