Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

Patna CAT Orders Pension and Benefits for Temporary Postal Worker: A Milestone Judgment

21 December 2024 2:18 PM

By: sayum


Tribunal's decision mandates pension and other benefits for a long-term temporary postal employee, emphasizing parity with regular Group 'D' employees. In a landmark decision, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Patna has directed the Union of India to extend pension and other benefits to a long-serving temporary postal worker, Shatrughan Prasad, treating him at par with regular Group 'D' employees. The judgment, pronounced by Hon'ble Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, addresses the systemic issue of non-regularization of long-term temporary workers and sets a precedent for similar cases.

Shatrughan Prasad, who served as a casual laborer in the postal department since 1981, was granted Temporary Status in 1997. Despite over three decades of service, he was not regularized. The applicant sought the Tribunal's intervention to direct the respondents to treat him as a regular Group 'D' employee for pension purposes and other retirement benefits.

The Tribunal recognized that Prasad's continuous service from 1981 and subsequent temporary status from 1997 warranted his treatment on par with regular Group 'D' employees. "It is a travesty of justice if an employee serving for almost two decades is denied pensionary benefits merely on technical grounds," observed Justice Singh.

The Tribunal extensively cited the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, highlighting their applicability to temporary employees with long-term service. The judgment emphasized that 50% of the service rendered under Temporary Status should be counted for retirement benefits after regularization.

Justice Singh stated, "The applicant having served the government for almost four decades cannot be denied pensionary benefits on the ground of non-regularization. The spirit of the law is to provide social security to long-serving employees, and this Tribunal upholds that principle."

The Tribunal referenced several precedents, including the Supreme Court judgments in Yashwant Hari Katakkar vs. Union of India and Union of India vs. Kritnarain Singh, which reinforced the principle that long-serving temporary employees are entitled to pensionary benefits. "Beneficial legislation like the CCS (Pension) Rules must be interpreted to extend maximum benefit to the employees," the judgment noted.

The judgment highlighted the principle of equal treatment, stating that temporary employees performing the same duties as regular employees must receive similar benefits. The Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument that Prasad was not entitled to pension due to his temporary status, emphasizing the unfairness of such a stance.

The CAT's decision marks a significant victory for temporary workers in the government sector, ensuring that long-term service is duly recognized and rewarded with appropriate retirement benefits. This judgment not only provides relief to Shatrughan Prasad but also sets a precedent for similar cases, reinforcing the legal framework that safeguards the rights of temporary employees. The ruling sends a clear message about the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principles of justice and equity in employment matters.

Date of Decision: July 2, 2024

Latest Legal News