MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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