High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 844/2013 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I.A.ANSARI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.MUSAHARY JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) (Ansari, J) r. J Sarma, learned Central Govt. Counsel, appearing for the respondents. Heard Mr. A. Khalique, learned counsel for the petitioner, and M 2. The respondents herein made Original Application No. 208/2012 ( hereinafter referred to as (cid:28)the O.A. (cid:29)) in the learned Central Administrative Tri bunal, Guwahati, seeking directions to be issued to the present petitioner, who were respondents in the O.A. No. 208/2012, to pay family pension and death gratu ity and also to appoint the son of the petitioner herein to any post, in Group ’ D’, on compassionate ground. As the O.A. has been dismissed by order, dated 21.1 2.2012, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Co nstitution of India, putting to challenge the order, dated 21.12.2012, aforement ioned. Broadly speaking, the reason, assigned by the learned Tribunal f 3. or rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for pension and other retiral benefits, is that the petitioner’s husband was not a regular Group-D employee and was not, th erefore, entitled to receive pension and other pensionary benefits.
Decision
4. In order to appreciate the case of the petitioner and to decide as to whether the petitioner was entitled to any of the reliefs, which she had c laimed, in the said O.A., it is appropriate to take note of the material facts, which may be set out, in brief, thus : The petitioner’s husband, Ram Bahadur Che try, was appointed, as a casual labourer, on 11.5.1984, under the Senior Supdt. of Post Offices, R.M.S., G.H. Divn., Guwahati-1. By an order, dated 21.11.1989, the petitioner’s husband was conferred temporary status by his employer. Thereaf ter, an order was made, on 20.5.1996, by the HRO RMS ’GH’ Dn. treating the petit ioner’s husband as a temporary Group ’D’ employee with effect from 29.11.1992. F or the sake of clarity, the relevant part of the impugned order is reproduced be low : (cid:28)DEPARTMENT OF POSTS INDIA O.O the Senior Superintendent RMS (cid:28)GH ’ Dn.Guwahati- Head Record Officer. Memo No. B-2/Ext.-Maz’96. Dated Guwahati -1 the 20.5.96. The following casual lobourers who have been granted temporary status vi de Dte’s letter No. 45-95/87-SPB-I dtd. 12.4.91 and have rendered 3 years contin uous service with temporary status, be treated them at par with temporary Group ’D’ Education Department employees w.e.f. the date shown against each and from t hat date they will be entitled to benefits as admissible to them. Group ’D’ Educ ation Department employees on regular basis in accordance with Dte’s letter 66-9 /91- SPB-I dtd. 30.11.92 circulated through the SSRM ’Dn. Letter No. B-2/9CM/Rlg . Dtd. 31.12.92 such as - All kinds of leave admissible to temporary employees. 1. Holidays as admissible to regular employees. 2. 3. Counting of service for the purpose of pension and terminal benefits as in the case of temporary employees appointed on regular basis for those temporar y employees who are given temporary status and who complete 3 years of service i n that status while granting them pension and retirement benefits after & & & & & &. their regularization. 4. Central Government employees Insurance Scheme. G.P.F. Medical Aid. L.T.C. All advance admissible to temporary Group ’D’ employees. Bonus. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Name of Date from Granted treated casual labour which working temp. at par status with temp. Gr. ’D’ 1.Sri Ram Bahadur Chetry 11.5.04 29.11.89 29.11.92. 2. Sri Keshal Ch. Das 9.2.85 -do-- -do- 3. Bhudhar Deka 9.2.85 -do- -do- 4. Sri Arun C. Deka 5. Sri Khagendra Kalita 6. Sri Firdus Ahmed 7. Sri Azizur Rahman 8. Sri Rabi Kanta Borah 5.5.84 -do- -do- 9. Sri Ismail Ali 13.2.85 -do- -do- -do- 27.2.85 9.2.85 -do- -do- 11.2.85 -do- -do- -do- 11.2.85 -do- -do- 10. Sri Nalini Baishya 11. Miss. Sandhya Rani Bora 25.4.91 24.10.89 24.10.90 -do- 25.4.92 Sd/- B.R.Narzary HRO RMS ’GH’ Dn. Guwahati -1 25.4.94. From the order, dated 20.5.1996, aforementioned, what clearly em 5. erges is that as the petitioner’s husband had rendered more than 3 years of cont inuous service after he had acquired temporary status, the order, dated 20.5.96, was made directing that the petitioner’s husband be treated at par with tempora ry Grade ’D’ employee with effect from the date shown against his name. In the c ase of the petitioner’s husband, the date being treated at par with temporary Gr ade- IV employee is 21.11.92. 6. Though a temporary Govt. employee is not directly covered by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, such an employee is covered unde r the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, by virtue of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, which clearly states that in the event of death of a temporary Govt. servant while in service, his family shall be eligible for family pension and death gratuity at the same scale and under the same provisions as are applicable to permanent Cen tral Civilian Government Servants under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rul es, 1972. 7. In the light of provisions of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Cen tral Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, there can be no escape fro m the conclusion, as we have already indicated above, that in the event of deat h of a temporary Govt. servant while in service, his family shall be eligible fo r family pension and death gratuity in the same manner as a permanent Government servant. Though the petitioner’s husband was not confirmed as a Group ’D’ emplo yee, he had nonetheless served, until the day of his death, i.e. 29.11.2011, the Government as a temporary Group ’D’ employee w.e.f. 29.11.92 and the petitioner , was, therefore, in the light of provisions of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 10 of the C entral Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, entitled to receive pen sion. This aspect of the matter appears to have escaped the notice of the learne d Tribunal. 8. In fact, we are fortified in coming to the conclusion, which we have reached above, by the order, dated 4.9.2002, passed by a Division Bench of this Court, in WP(C) 7781/2001, which had been instituted by the widow of late A run Chandra Deka, whose name appears at Sl. No. 4 of the order, dated 20.5.1996, aforementioned. Examining her claim for pension, the Division Bench of this Cou rt in the order, dated 4.9.2002, aforementioned, observed and directed as follow s : (cid:28)This writ application has been filed challenging the order date d 9.5.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in Orig inal Application No. 420/2000 directing the Respondent to taken necessary steps for granting family pension and the retiral benefits to the applicant with effec t from 9.2.85. The relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal is quoted below :- On the basis of his length of service and as per the direction o f the Supreme Court and as specified in the scheme he was employed by the respon dents and was also granted temporary status and treated at par with temporary Gr oup- D employees with effect from 29-11-1992. Since he was treated at par with t emporary Group D employees such person almost termed to be regular employee. So much so all the service benefits were made available to them including counting of service for the purpose of pension and terminal benefits as in the case of te mporary employee appointed on regular basis who were given temporary status and who completed 3 years of service in that status. As per Central Civil Services) Rules 1965 in the event of death of a temporary Government Servant while in serv ice, his family shall be eligible for family pension and death gratuity of the s ame scale and under the same provisions as are applicable to permanent Central C ivilian Government Servants under CCs(Pension) Rules 1972. The husband of the ap plicant in all practical purposes was treated as regular employee and at par wit h Group D employees. Once he was treated as such he is entitled for the service benefits since those period cannot be treated as non-qualifying period, no such rules are cited to exclude those period. In these circumstances it is difficult to hold the contentions raised by Mr. A. Deb Roy that the applicant was not enti tled to family pension on the alleged purported ground that he failed in the lit eracy test. For the aforesaid reason the impugned communication dated 07-04-1999 is set aside and quashed and the respondents are directed to take necessary ste ps for grant her family pensions and retirement benefits with effect from 09-02- 1985, more so, he was granted the Group D status. (cid:29) Heard Mr. C. Choudhury, learned Advocate for the petitioner. Non 2. e appears for the respondent. On perusal of the materials on record, we do not f ind any infirmity, illegality and/or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order . Accordingly, this writ application shall stand rejected. (cid:29) From the above observations made in the order dated, 4.9.2002, 9. aforementioned, by the Division Bench, it clearly transpires that since Arun Cha ndra Deka had completed more than 3 years of continuous service after having bee n granted temporary status and as he had been ordered to be treated, w.e.f. 21.1 1.92, at par with temporary Group ’D’ employees, his widow was held entitled to receive family pension and death gratuity in the same manner as are applicable t o a permanent Government servant under the Central Civil Services (Pension), Rul es, 1972. The petitioner herein stands on the same footing as did the widow of late Arun Chandra Deka and is, therefore, entitled to the same reliefs, which t he widow of late Arun Chandra Deka was held by the High Court entitled to recei ve. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we ha 10. ve no hesitation in holding that the petitioner’s husband, having been treated, though temporarily, at par with Group ’D’ employees, w.e.f. 21.11.92, he ought t o have been regarded as the temporary Government servant and pension and death g ratuity ought to have been paid to his wife, i.e. the petitioner herein, in acco rdance with the provisions of the Central Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1 965, read with the Central Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. 11. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this writ pet ition succeeds. The impugned order, dated 21.12.2012, passed by the learned Trib unal, is hereby set aside and the respondents are hereby directed to make availa ble, within a period of two months from today, pension and death gratuity to th e petitioner in terms of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs of th is judgment and order. 12. hall stand disposed of. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition s 13. 14. l. No costs. Furnish a copy of this order to the learned Central Govt. Counse