Temporary-Status Postal Gardener Hired After 1993 Cut-Off To Get Old-Pension Benefits At Retirement: Allahabad CAT

The applicant was appointed as a Contingency Paid (CP) Gardener on 29 December 1993.

His working hours were progressively increased, and he was granted temporary status with effect from 1 June 1997.

He continued in the post and sought regularisation and consequential benefits under Rule 154(a) of the Manual of Appointments and Allowances of Officers of the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department.

The respondents rejected his claim on 28 July 2025, reasoning that he was appointed after the 1 September 1993 cut-off date.

Following an earlier Tribunal direction to consider his claim under the applicable rules, he challenged that rejection in this application.

Rule 154(a) of the Manual provides for selected categories of whole-time contingency-paid staff, including gardeners, working alongside regular or work-charged employees to be brought onto the regular establishment and treated as regular employees.

The Tribunal also considered Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari: the latter explains that employees meeting the conditions identified in Umadevi—including ten years’ continuous service as of 10 April 2006, in duly sanctioned posts and without court-ordered protection—must be considered in a one-time regularisation exercise.

It referred to Union of India v. Mohan Pal for the proposition that the 1993 temporary-status scheme was not an ongoing scheme, while noting that the applicant had already been granted temporary status.

The Tribunal also relied on Chhotey Lal v. Union of India concerning pensionary entitlement for employees treated as regular under Rule 154(a), even without a formal regularisation order.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had worked continuously for more than 30 years, performed duties akin to those of regular gardeners, received the post’s emoluments, and had already been granted temporary status.

It considered that, in light of Umadevi and Kesari, the respondents ought to have considered him in a regularisation exercise, and that his long service and the treatment of comparable CP staff supported pensionary relief.

However, because the CP Gardener post was a dying-cadre post, the Tribunal declined to direct regularisation to that post and instead granted the narrower relief of pensionary benefits.

It directed the respondents to extend Old Pension Scheme benefits to the applicant after he reaches superannuation, taking account of the temporary status already granted to him.

No costs were awarded.