Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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