ORDER
Bharati Ray, Member (J)
1. This application has been filed by the applicant seeking for the following relief:
(a) to call for records pertaining to the service rendered by the applicant as temporary status Group-D official and with regard to the grant of pension and pensionary benefits including leave encashment, and set aside the impugned order No. PMGK/AC/Pen/B.S. dated 18.07.2005 of the 3rd respondent rejecting the pension and pensionary benefits and leave encashment on fictitious grounds that the applicant is not regularised as Group D official, declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal, unwarranted, misconceived and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
(b) to direct the respondents to grant all the pension and pensionary benefits including leave encashment to the applicant having acquired the temporary status, duly regularising his services with retrospective effect in regular Group – D post and grant all the consequential benefits such as arrears of pay and allowances from the date of regularisation and pension and pensionary benefits including leave encashment and other benefits with all consequential benefits.
2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Contingent Night Watchman with effect from 11.05.1979 in the office of 3rd respondent. The applicant was granted temporary status with effect from 01.03.1994 vide memo dated 29.11.1995 by the 3rd respondent. The applicant was not regularised during his service tenure. The applicant retired from service with effect from 11.05.2005(AN) on completion of 60 years of age vide order dated 25.4.2005. It is the grievance of the applicant that on his retirement the applicant was not granted payment of retrial benefits, pension and accumulated leave encashment. The respondents have only made payment of Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme for an amount of Rs. 2,313/- vide memo dated 19.09.2005 of 4th respondent. Although the applicant had 300 days of earned leave at his credit as on the date of his retirement, the respondents have not paid the amount of encashment of leave salary. The applicant submitted representation on 17.05.2005 to the 3rd respondent which was acknowledged by the 3rd respondent on 18.05.2005. In the said representation the applicant had requested for pension and other retrial benefits admissible to Group-D officials having been granted temporary status with effect from 01.03.1994. The 3rd respondent in response to the said representation vide letter dated 18.07.2005 rejected the prayer of the applicant by intimating him that he is not entitled for encashment of unavailed earned leave after termination of service with effect from 11.05.2005, on attaining the age of superannuation. In the said letter the prayer of the applicant for pension and pensionary benefits has also been rejected on the ground that holders of temporary status Group-D officials are not entitled for pension and retirement benefits, unless their services are regularised.
3. It is the contention of the applicant that the Director General, Posts (1st respondent) vide his letter No. 66-9/91-SPB-1 dated 30.11.1992 had communicated the decision of the Government, consequent to the judgment dated 29.11.1989 of the Apex Court to treat the temporary Group-D employees of the Department of Posts on par with regular Group-D employees, after rendering 3 years of continuous service with temporary status making them entitled to such benefits as are admissible to group-D employees on regular basis. The applicant, therefore, submits that in view of the above instruction the applicant is entitled to get pension and other pensionary benefits. It is further submitted by the applicant that in the light of the instructions contained in circular dated 30.11.1992 the applicant who had been conferred with temporary status with effect from 01.03.1994 on completion of 3 years of service attains his status of temporary Group-D official making eligible for all the benefits as are available to the regular Group-D official. The said circular dated 30.11.1992 is enclosed at page 32 of the OA, the relevant part of which is extracted below:
3. In compliance with the above said directive of the Hon’ble Supreme Court it has been decided that the Casual Labourers of this Department conferred with temporary status as per the scheme circulated in the above-said Circular No. 45-95/87-SPB.I dated 12.4.1991, be treated at par with temporary Group’D’ employees with effect from the date they complete three years of service in the newly acquired temporary status as per the above-said scheme. From that date they will be entitled to benefits admissible to temporary Group’D’ employees such as-
1. All kinds of leave admissible to temporary employees;
2. Holidays as admissible to regular employees
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 temporary employees who are given temporary status and who complete three years of service in that status while granting them pension and retirement benefits after their regularization;
4. Central Government Employees Insurance Scheme;
5. General Provident Fund;
6. Medical aid;
7. Leave Travel Concession;
8. All advances admissible to temporary Group’D’ employees;
9. Bonus.
4. The applicant submitted representation to the respondents to consider his case for regularisation of his services as a regular Group-D employee in the light of the above instruction of the Director General of Posts. But the respondents for the reasons best known to them have not regularised the service of the applicant as Group-D employee and the applicant retired from service with effect from 11.05.2005 on attaining the age of superannuation. As the issue of regularisation was not looked into by the respondents, the applicant submitted representation on 17.05.2005 requesting to regularise his services as Group-D on par with his juniors and to grant pension and other retrial benefits admissible to Group-D officials. He has also requested for payment of encashment of leave. The said representation was rejected vide impugned order dated 18.07.2005 on the ground that applicant was not regularised as Group-D official and therefore not entitled for pension and retirement benefits as admissible to them. It is also the contention of the applicant that he had passed V class and produced the educational qualification as directed by the respondents for the purpose of regularisation. In this context he also stated that he belonged to SC community. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2005 of the 3rd respondent the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking for the aforesaid relief.
5. The respondents have contested the application by filing a counter reply.
6. Heard Mr. S. Ramakrishna Rao, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. A. Rajendra Babu, standing counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 and Mr. TVVS Murthy, learned Counsel for respondents No. 5 & 6. I have gone through the facts of the case and material papers placed before me.
7. It is the specific case of the respondents that though the applicant was granted temporary status he was not appointed in any Group-D vacancy regularly as he did not possess requisite educational qualification. The applicant continued to work as Contingent Night Watchman with temporary status. The services of the applicant were dispensed with on the A/N of 11.5.2005 on attaining the age of 60 years being the date of birth 12.5.1945 as the retirement age of Group-D officials is 60 years vide clarificatory orders issued in D.G. letter No. 45-48/92-SPB-I dated 23.2.93. Since the service of the applicant was not regularised he is not entitled for pension/leave encashment and retirement benefits and accordingly the representation of the applicant was disposed of by letter No. PMGK/AC/Pen/88 dated 18.7.2005 by the 3rd respondent. In regard to the DG instructions dated 30.11.1992 the respondents have stated that only after regularisation the casual labourers who are given temporary status are eligible for grant of pension and retirement benefits. In the instant case the services of the applicant were not regularised hence the question of payment of pension does not arise. Therefore, the respondents have rejected the application dated 17.05.2005. In regard to the scheme as mentioned by the applicant applicable in Railways the respondents have submitted that the Department of Telecommunications and Department of Posts have their own scheme. The applicant is entitled for the benefits as per the scheme envisaged in his department. It is the contention of the respondents that Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary status and Regularisation) scheme envisages that conferment of temporary status has no relation to sanctioned regular Group-d posts. Hence casual labourers conferred with temporary status cannot be equated with regular temporary Group-D employees and they are not entitled to pensionary benefits. The respondents have enclosed a copy of Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary status and Regularisation) Scheme as Annexure R-1 to the counter reply. Para-4 of which reads as under:
4. Leave entitlement will be one day for every 10 day’s of work, casual leave or any other kind of leave, except maternity leave, will not be admissible. No encashment of leave is permissible on termination of services for any reason or on the casual labourers quitting service.
8. Para-7 of the said scheme is also required to be gone through and the same is reproduced below:
7. Conferment of Temporary Status does not automatically imply that the casual labourers would be appointed as a regular Group ‘D’ employee within any fixed time frame. Appointment to Group ‘D’ vacancies will continue to be done as per the extant recruitment rules, which stipulate preference to eligible ED employees.
9. Learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of CAT Jodhpur Bench in the case of Jokhan Prasad and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. decided on 5.2.2002.
10. In view of the above facts and circumstances the only question that arises for consideration is whether the applicant is entitled for pension and pensionary benefits and payment of leave encashment?
11. Admittedly the applicant was discharged from service on attaining the age of 60 years as casual labour with temporary status. The service of the applicant was not regularised at the time when he was discharged from service. In sub para (3) of para (3) of instruction dated 30.11.1992 extracted above it is clearly mentioned that retirement benefits will be given only after regularisation. A perusal of the relevant instruction would show that unless his service as casual labour with temporary status is regularised he is not entitled for pension and pensionary benefits. Para 4 of the scheme dated 12.04.1991 also shows that applicant is not entitled to get the benefit of leave encashment. The judgment relied upon by the applicant is not applicable in this case for the reason that in the said case the applicants therein prayed for regularisation of service when they were very much in service. Admittedly the applicant herein has retired from service. A careful reading of the judgment would show that regularisation of service is must to become entitled to get pension and pensionary benefits.
12. In view of the above facts and circumstances I am of the view that the applicant who had been granted temporary status and whose services were not regularised at the time of his discharge from service is not entitled to get the pension and pensionary benefits and for the same reason he is not entitled to get the leave encashment as per the government instruction. The applicant is, therefore, not entitled to get the relief prayed for.
13. OA being devoid of merit is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.