Delhi High Court
Smt. Ram Dei vs Union Of India & Ors. on 7 September, 2009
Author: A. K. Pathak
HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7512/2004
Judgment reserved on: 2nd September, 2009
% Judgment delivered on: 7th September, 2009
SMT. RAM DEI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Hem C. Vashisht, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor and Ms. Tanuja
Rawat, Advs.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3 Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes
A.K. PATHAK, J.
1. Petitioner was appointed as a Mali on muster roll on 26 th
July, 1977. Subsequently, she was accorded temporary status
with effect from 1st September, 1993, in terms of DOP&T scheme
dated 10th October, 1993. Petitioner served as casual labourer
with temporary status till she superannuated on 31 st May, 2001.
Petitioner could not be regularized for want of regular vacancy.
Accordingly, her claim for pension was rejected by the
Respondent.
2. Feeling aggrieved by this action of Respondent, Petitioner
preferred O.A. No. 119/2003 before the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short hereinafter called
as "Tribunal") on the ground that she having worked with the
Respondents for almost 23 years i.e. initially on muster roll and
later on as casual labourer with temporary status, could not have
been deprived of her legitimate dues in the form of retiral benefits
like pension etc. She alleged that the Respondent had
regularized some similarly situated persons ignoring the
Petitioner, thus violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India; Petitioner was deemed to have been regularized as
increments were granted to her from time to time. She was even
asked to complete the pension papers. It is further alleged that
on humanitarian grounds also Petitioner was entitled to pension.
3. Respondent opposed the OA on the ground that though
Petitioner was accorded temporary status with effect from 1 st
September, 1993 in terms of DOP&T scheme dated 10 th October,
1993, she could not be regularized for want of vacancy till she
attained age of superannuation. She being casual labourer with
temporary status, was not entitled to pension under the Central
Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short hereinafter called
as "Pension Rules"). It was further contended that no junior to
the Petitioner was regularized, thus, she was not discriminated.
4. Tribunal held that as per the DOP&T scheme of 1993 a
casual labourer acquiring temporary status was entitled to wages
at the minimum of pay scale for corresponding regular Group D
staff. Such casual labourer was not only entitled to benefit of
increments but was also entitled to maternity leave as per the
aforesaid scheme; further, 50% of the service rendered by said
casual labourer was also to be counted for the purpose of
retirement benefits but only after the regularization. After
completing three years service on conferment of temporary
status, a casual labourer was to be treated at par with a Group D
employee and was also entitled to festival advance. In terms of
para 6 of the aforesaid scheme a casual labourer with temporary
status was not entitled to any other benefit, at par with a Group
D employees. Pension to a Government servant was regulated by
the Pension Rules. Pension Rules were not applicable to the
persons in casual employment and/or in daily rated employment
in view of Rule 2 of the said pension Rules. Since Petitioner
remained a casual labourer with temporary status till her
superannuation, she was not holder of a substantive post, thus
was not entitled to pension.
5. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19th September,
2003 passed by the Tribunal, Petitioner has approached this
Court by way of present writ petition providing therein that order
of the Tribunal be set aside and Respondent be directed to
regularize the service of Petitioner on the post of Mali. It was
further prayed that the notice dated 14th December, 2000
whereby Petitioner was retired from service with effect from 31st
May, 2001 be also quashed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material placed on record. We do not find any reason to
interfere with the impugned order. In our view conclusions
drawn by the Tribunal are correct, in the facts of this case and
law applicable thereto. Initially, Petitioner was appointed as a
casual labourer. Later on, she was accorded temporary status in
view of the DOP&T scheme dated 10th October, 1993. Petitioner
could not be regularized till she attained the age of sixty years,
for want of vacancy. Petitioner was not regularized against a
substantive post. As per the aforesaid scheme the casual
labourers with temporary status were entitled to certain benefits
at par with regular Group „D‟ employees, which were specifically
mentioned in the scheme and which we have spelt out in the
preceding paras. Petitioner was given such benefits while she
was working as a casual labourer. As per the aforesaid scheme,
Petitioner was not entitled to any other benefit at par with the
regular employees.
7. In case of a casual labourer, Pension Rules will not be
attracted. If that is so, then Petitioner would not be entitled to the
pension, as she had not acquired a status of a regular employee.
Thus, in our view, Tribunal has rightly held that Petitioner was
not entitled to pensionary benefits.
8. Petitioner has placed reliance on Kesar Chand vs. State of
Punjab, reported in Vol. XCIV (1988-2) PLR 223. We have
perused this judgment and are of the view that same is of no help
to the Petitioner, having been rendered in different facts. In the
said case Petitioner joined office of the Sub Divisional Officer as a
work-charged employee and later on was regularized and had
acquired status of a public servant. In these facts, it was held
that the services of work-charged employee, having been
regularized, he would be entitled to pension. That apart, Pension
Rules were not under scrutiny in the said case. In our view,
Kesar Chand‟s case is not applicable to the present case.
9. Only on compassion, no order can be passed for grant of
pension to the Petitioner dehors the Pension Rules. This may
cause hardship to the Petitioner but it is a necessary sequel to
the application of Pension Rules.
10. In the light of above discussion, we are of the view that
Tribunal rightly concluded that Petitioner was not entitled to the
pensionary benefits.
11. Dismissed.
A.K. PATHAK, J
MADAN B. LOKUR, J
SEPTEMBER 07, 2009
rb
