Conviction Under Section 326 IPC Requires Proof of ‘Dangerous Weapon’ – Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Section 325 IPC Marital Disputes Must Not Become Never-Ending Legal Battles – Supreme Court Ends 12-Year-Long Litigation with Final Settlement Denial of Pre-Charge Evidence is a Violation of Fair Trial: Supreme Court Restores Complainant’s Right to Testify Slum Redevelopment Cannot Be Held Hostage by a Few Dissenters – Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Eviction Notices Termination of Judicial Probationers Without Inquiry Violates Principles of Natural Justice – Allahabad High Court Quashes Discharge Orders A Celebrity’s Name is Not Public Property – No One Can Exploit It Without Consent – High Court Bars Release of Film Titled ‘Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar’ Truck Driver's Negligence Fully Established – No Contributory Negligence by Car Driver: Delhi High Court Enhances Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Stamp Duty Demand After 15 Years is Legally Unsustainable – Karnataka High Court Quashes Proceedings Licensees Cannot Claim Adverse Possession, Says Kerala High Court No Evidence Directly Implicating Acquitted Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in ₹55 Lakh Bank Fraud Compensatory Aspect of Cheque Bounce Cases Must Be Given Priority Over Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Cannot Be Granted When Prima Facie Evidence Links Accused to Terrorist Activities—Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Under UAPA" Statutory Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Without Justifiable Grounds—Calcutta High Court Reinstates Bail for NIA Case Accused Juvenile Justice Cannot Be Ignored for Heinous Crimes—Bail to Minor in Murder Case Upheld: Delhi High Court Litigants Cannot Sleep Over Their Rights and Wake Up at the Last Minute: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea to Reopen Ex-Parte Case After 16 Years Economic Offenses With Deep-Rooted Conspiracies Must Be Treated Differently—Bail Cannot Be Granted Lightly: Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Bail in ₹5.39 Crore Money Laundering Case Tenant Cannot Deny Landlord’s Title Once Property Is Sold—Eviction Upheld: Jharkhand High Court Pending Criminal Case Cannot Be a Ground to Deny Passport Renewal Unless Cognizance Is Taken by Court: Karnataka High Court Conviction Cannot Rest on Suspicion—Kerala High Court Acquits Mother and Son in Murder Case Over Flawed Evidence Seized Assets Cannot Be Released During Trial—Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Gali Janardhan Reddy’s Plea for Gold and Bonds Remarriage Cannot Disqualify a Widow From Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Unregistered Sale Agreement Gives No Right to Possession—Madras High Court Rejects Injunction Against Property Owners

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

Similar News