Temporary-status employees with decades of service cannot be denied pension solely for non-regularisation.

The applicant was engaged as a Mobile Booking Clerk in 1986 and, following earlier Tribunal proceedings, was re-engaged and granted temporary status in July 1998.

He did not attend the screening test held in 2002.

A later screening test, conducted in 2012 pursuant to a Tribunal direction, found him suitable for Commercial Clerk against the Direct Recruitment quota, but the respondents declined regularisation on the ground that he exceeded the upper age limit.

He retired on 31 March 2022 without receiving pensionary benefits.

The respondents stated that he had served 24 years, 4 months and 8 days, but calculated his qualifying service as 12 years, 2 months and 4 days; they had not issued a PPO because he was not regularised.

He sought pensionary benefits and quashing of the order dated 17 October 2013.

Whether an employee granted temporary status, who served the Railways for more than 24 years, could be denied pensionary benefits solely because his services were not regularised

Whether the order dated 17 October 2013 refusing regularisation on the ground of age should be quashed in the circumstances of the case

The Tribunal proceeded on the principle that an employee granted temporary status and retained in service for a substantial period cannot be denied pensionary benefits merely because formal regularisation was not completed.

It relied on the reasoning in Balkrishna Sharma v. State of U.P. concerning equitable relief and retirement benefits after long service, and on Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand concerning fairness and non-arbitrariness in State employment.

It also considered the earlier Tribunal directions concerning temporary status and age relaxation for booking clerks, Mohd. Qasimuddin v. Union of India, Rukhiben Rupabhai v. Union of India, and Smt. Kamlesh v. Union of India, which recognised pensionary or family-pension entitlements in the relevant circumstances.

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had been granted temporary status in 1998 and continued serving until retirement in 2022, amounting to more than 24 years after temporary status was conferred.

It considered that the respondents had also deducted GPF contributions during his service.

In the Tribunal’s view, given the length of service and the applicant’s temporary status, the failure to regularise him because of the age criterion did not justify denying him pensionary benefits altogether.

It therefore treated the inability to complete regularisation as insufficient, in these circumstances, to defeat his claim to retirement benefits.

It directed the respondents to grant the applicant pensionary benefits, including arrears, as admissible to a regular employee within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

If payment is delayed beyond that period, interest at the GPF rate is payable.