Union Of INDIA And Another vs. Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Union of India and another, challenged an order dated 21.09.2023 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh Bench. The CAT order held respondent No. 2 entitled to family pension and retiral benefits following the death of her husband, who served for 17 years and died in service. The deceased was appointed as a Frash in November 1997. In 2002, he and other casual workers sought to be treated as direct employees and paid the minimum pay scale. The CAT disposed of their application on 14.08.2002, directing consideration for regularization when posts were filled or created. This was upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court. Despite this, regularization was never considered. The deceased died on 16.03.2014, and respondent No. 2's claim for family pension was denied on the grounds of his casual employment status.
Held
The Court held that the husband of respondent No. 2 should be treated as a regular employee for the purpose of granting family pension. The reasoning was based on the fact that he had rendered approximately 17 years of service, and despite a court order in 2002 upheld up to the Supreme Court directing consideration for regularization, the petitioner failed to do so for 13 years until his death. The Court found that an employee working continuously for such a long period, performing duties essential for the establishment, cannot be considered to be engaged in casual or stop-gap work. The Court relied on the principle established in Jai Bhagwan vs. State of Haryana, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, stating that continuous service for a significant period should be treated as long-term employment for all intents and purposes, qualifying for pensionary benefits. The Court also noted that similar benefits were granted in cases like Alka Sharma and Dalbir Kaur, where the deceased employees were also casual workers but had rendered long service. The ratio decidendi is that prolonged service, even if initially on a casual basis, coupled with a failure by the employer to consider regularization despite judicial directives, necessitates treating such service as regular for consequential benefits like family pension, especially when the State is expected to act as a welfare state. The CAT's order was upheld, and the petition was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the husband of respondent No. 2, despite being a casual employee, is entitled to the benefit of family pension, considering his approximately 17 years of service and the directions for regularization that attained finality up to the Supreme Court, turning on the interpretation of his service status in relation to pensionary benefits and the principles laid down in cases like Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi and Jai Bhagwan vs. State of Haryana. Contentions: Petitioner (Union of India): Argued that the husband of respondent No. 2 was not a regular employee, and family pension is only for widows of deceased regular employees, citing Section 2 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. They also contended that no post of Frash was available for regularization and that the work performed was a stop-gap arrangement. Respondent No. 2: Relied on the CAT's order, the long period of service (17 years), the Supreme Court's affirmation of the regularization claim, and judgments in similar cases like Alka Sharma vs. Union of India and Dalbir Kaur.
Sections Cited
Section 2 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
order/judgment Chandigarh Bench by which, respondent No. 2 has been held entitled for the benefit of family pension as well as other retiral benefits after the death of her husband, who had worked for a period of 17 years with the petitioner and had died while in service.
It may be noticed that the husband of respondent No. 2 was appointed in November, 1997 as a Frash in the Central Excise Department, Chandigarh. After rendering the service for a period of four years, the husband of respondent No. 2 along with the other casual workers approached the Tribunal by filing OA No. 800/CH/2001 that they should be treated as the direct employees of the Department and they be paid the minimum of the pay scale for the post. The said Original Application was disposed on 14.08.2002 (Annexure P-1) by passing an order that the casual workers will be considered for regularization of their services as and when the posts are filled up or additional posts are created to meet the requirement over the work of Frash as well as Sweepers.
Against the said judgment, a writ petition was filed by the petitioners before this Court being CWP no. 7983-CAT of 2003, which was dismissed on 23.05.2003 (Annexure P-2) after which, the petitioner approached Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and vide order dated 20.04.2010 (Annexure P-3), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India affirmed the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal with regard to the consideration of the claim of the employees for regularization of their services. KANCHAN 2025.08.27 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment
Thereafter, though the benefit of minimum of the pay scale was granted to the Frash and the Sweepers working but at no given point of time their claim for regularization of their services was considered.
Unfortunately, while working with the Department, the husband of respondent No. 2 died on 16.03.2014 after which, the respondent No. 2 raised the claim before the Tribunal for the grant of family pension as the same was not being granted on the ground that the husband of respondent No. 2 was a casual employee and ultimately, the Tribunal vide order dated 21.09.2023 (Annexure P-10) directed the petitioners to grant the family pension to respondent No. 2 by treating her husband as regular employee on the date of his death keeping in view the fact that he had 17 years of service to his credit, which order has been impugned by the petitioners in the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the husband of respondent No. 2 was not a regular employee and the benefit of family pension can only be granted to the widow of the deceased regular employee and hence, keeping in view the provisions of law, especially Section 2 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the said benefit cannot be granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record with his able assistance.
The only argument which has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that keeping in view the fact that the husband of respondent No. 2 was not regular employee, the direction given by the Tribunal to grant the benefit of family pension is incorrect. KANCHAN 2025.08.27 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment
It may be noticed that the husband of respondent No. 2 was appointed in the year 1997 and in the year 2002, direction was given by the Competent Court of Law to consider the claim of the husband of respondent No. 2 along with other employees for regularization of their services. It is a conceded position that the said order dated 14.08.2002 (Annexure P-1) has already attained finality upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India but, no such consideration was ever given by the petitioner herein to the claim of husband of respondent No. 2 for regularization of his services for the next 13 years until he unfortunately died while in service.
Not only this, after the direction was given by the Tribunal, which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the year 2010, has worked for a period of ten years, was entitled for regularization of his/ 2025.08.27 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment continuously for a period of 20 years, it cannot be said that the work/nature of duties being performed by such employees is casual or is not required to be performed in order to run the establishment. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is as under :- “I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. Counsel for the petitioner contends that once the petitioner had rendered service on part time basis starting from 06.08.1992 till 27.02.2012, the same is liable to be counted as a qualifying service for the grant of pensionary benefits. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that though the petitioner was working on part time basis, but as he worked for about 20 years, it cannot be said that he discharged the duties on part time basis. Further, as the petitioner was working as Peon in a school, it cannot be said that he was discharging the duties part time and the same has to be considered a regular employment for all intents and purposes. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents states that once the appointment was made on part time basis, the same cannot be considered as a qualifying service in view of the provisions of Section 3.17 (A) of the CSR Vol-II, according to which, part time service cannot be treated as a qualifying service. It is a matter of fact that the petitioner worked on part time basis continuously for 20 years. A person is engaged on part time only for a specific job and for specified period. It cannot be said that an employee, who is working continuously for 20 years as Peon in school, was a part time job. The said KANCHAN 2025.08.27 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment service is to be treated as a long term employment for all intents and purposes. A Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand's case (supra) has held that daily wage service, followed by regularization of the services, is to be counted as a qualifying service for the grant of pensionary benefits. Once, the daily wage service is to be counted as a qualifying service, it cannot be said that continuous appointment rendered by the petitioner for 20 years though as part time basis, is less than the daily wage service rendered by an employee. There is no justification given by the respondents to deny the said benefit, except the Rule 3.17 (A). The said Rule has already been considered in Kesar Chand's case (supra) and it has been held that the daily wage service followed by the regular service is good enough to be treated as qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits. Therefore, the service which the petitioner has rendered for 20 years as a Peon from 06.08.1992 till 27.02.2012 cannot be ignored for computing the pensionary benefits of the petitioner.”
Bhagwan, decided on 26.07.2024 and further upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 20.09.2024 in SLP(C) No. 21427-21435 of 2024. 14. Hence, once the duties being performed by the husband of respondent No. 2 were not casual in nature, it was the duty of the petitioner to create such post to give the benefit to employee who has worked for more than one and half decade rather than taking an objection that there did not exist any post for regularization of such employee so as to deny the widow KANCHAN 2025.08.27 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment of such employee, the benefit of family pension. The State has to treat itself differentiate the claim of respondent No. 2 from Alka Sharma’s case (supra) is that the same related to another Department and that in the said case, the delay in consideration of the case of regularization was attributable to the Department concerned.
In fact, the judgment in Alka Sharma’s case (supra) is applicable in the present case as the husband of respondent No. 2 herein had 17 years of service to his credit. Further, despite a direction given by the Competent Court of Law as far back as in 2002 to consider the claim of husband of respondent No. 2 for regularization, the same was not considered for the next 13 years till the husband of respondent No. 2 unfortunately died. Hence, the facts in the present case are not distinguishable as compared to Alka Sharma’s case (supra).
Not only this, the another widow of an employee who had died, namely, Dalbir Kaur, had also approached the Court for the grant of the same relief, which was allowed in her favour by the Tribunal. The writ petition KANCHAN 2025.08.27 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment being CWP No. 23105-CAT of 2014 was filed by the Union of India taking the same plea that the husband of Dalbir Kaur was not a regular employee so as to deny the relief claimed and after considering the said argument, keeping in view the fact that the husband of Dalbir Kaur had rendered 23 years of service, the Division Bench held that the services rendered by the husband of Dalbir Kaur cannot be treated as a casual so as to deny the benefit of family pension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes the said factum that the judgment in case of Dalbir Kaur has already been implemented, wherein, she has already been granted the benefit of family pension despite the fact that on the date of death, the husband of Dalbir Kaur was also a casual worker.
Further, this fact has already been conceded by the petitioner while giving the information under RTI, which is clear from the order dated 02.07.2019 (Annexure P-7), wherein, in Clause-10, it has been conceded that the husband of Dalbir Kaur was also a casual employee having temporary status.
Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, once, the benefit of family pension has been granted to Dalbir Kaur, whose husband had worked for a sufficiently long time after he unfortunately died while in service, declining the same benefit to respondent No. 2 will not be in the interest of justice.
Once, the husband of respondent No. 2 had given 17 years of his life to the Department, the Department should be gracious enough to accept KANCHAN 2025.08.27 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment the same so as to grant the benefit admissible to the family of such deceased employee so that they can live a dignified life after the death of such employee.
Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances in the present case, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the present petition.
Dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE (VIKAS SURI) JUDGE August 18, 2025 kanchan Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No KANCHAN 2025.08.27 09:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.