UOI AND ANR. v. BAHGWAN SHAHAI AND ORS

1. Vide the instant applications; the applicants/petitioners are seeking condonation of delay of 546 days in filing the same.

2. Notice was issued in these applications vide order dated 06.04.2011, however, till date no reply has been filed by the respondents.

3. It is stated in the instant applications that after the award dated 30.10.2009, the Director General of Works CPWD, requested the respective field units to obtain the legal opinion of the Government Counsel and furnish the same to them. The legal opinion received from separate Government Counsels revealed divergent views on the feasibility of challenging the award. In a similar case of Subhash Ranjeet Chauhan and Ram Chandra Malviya for counting the service of the MR period for the purpose of the pensionary benefit etc. was with CA Section (Ministry of Law) in which the learned ASG had advised filing of SLP against the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Accordingly, on 24.05.2010, it was decided to wait for the return of the file and prepare the grounds of appeal in the meantime.

4. The said files were received on 09.06.2010 and 10.06.2010, wherein it was advised that the case is fit for challenging the order in the Apex Court. For the said purpose, a draft SLP was prepared and it was decided that on the same ground, the impugned order may be challenged. Thereafter, the file was transferred to the Ministry of Urban Development for onward transmission to the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice to obtain their view.

5. Finally, on 21.12.2010 the matter was handed over to the counsel for filing the writ petition, who requested the CPWD to provide the files in this regard, accordingly, the record was provided to him on 24.12.2010.

6. Mr. Jayendra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants/petitioners submitted that delay has been caused due to the reasons mentioned above and the same was neither intentional nor wilful. He prayed that keeping in view the issue involved in these petitions, the delay may be condoned.

7. As noted above, reply has not been filed by the respondents to the applications seeking condonation of delay. Thus, it can be safely presumed that the respondents have nothing to say on these applications.

8. Keeping in view the averments made in the instant applications and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants; and considering the issue involved in these writ petitions, the delay in filing these applications is condoned.

9. Consequently, these applications are allowed. W.P.(C) Nos. 2314, 2315, 2830, 7002, 7003, 7738 of 2011 and 3229 of 2012

1. Vide these petitions, the petitioner C.P.W.D., a Central Government Department, has assailed order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.I in I.D. No.15/2007.

2. In W.P.(C) No. 2314/2011, there are thirty respondents/workmen, the details of whom are as under:

┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Sl. No. Name of workman              Date of joining Date         of                      │
│                                      of service      regularization                       │
├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 1.          Bhagwan Sahai            07.09.1979        04.03.1980                         │
│ 2.          Satish Kumar             22.12.1980        20.06.1988                         │
│ 3.          Tirpal                   01.12.1981        15.04.1991                         │
│ 4.          Raj Pal                  21.04.1981        05.07.1991                         │
│ W.P (C) No. 2314/2011                                     Page 5 of 20                    │
│                                                                  2014:DHC:5873            │
│ 5.         Babu Lal               09.11.1982   24.12.1992                                 │
│ 6.         Shiv Kumar             16.06.1983   16.02.1993                                 │
│ 7.         Gangesh Chand Tiwari   02.05.1982   12.02.1993                                 │
│ 8.         Bihari Lal             22.08.1982   16.01.1993                                 │
│ 9.         Mohan                  03.12.1979   05.02.1993                                 │
│ 10.        Bishamber              22.07.1983   16.02.1993                                 │
│ 11.        Kalicharan             21.09.1983   16.02.1993                                 │
│ 12.        Suresh Chand           25.01.1986   01.06.1996                                 │
│ 13.        Ram Pal                21.10.1984   10.06.1993                                 │
│ 14.        Birpal                 12.10.1981   01.05.1991                                 │
│ 15.        Tejpal                 01.01.1981   04.07.1989                                 │
│ 16.        Manohar Lal            21.09.1983   02.04.1993                                 │
│ 17.        Batan Singh            03.12.1979   17.06.1987                                 │
│ 18.        Nanak Chand            01.10.1979   05.03.1986                                 │
│ 19.        Shanti                 08.04.1976   05.01.1985                                 │
│ 20.        Om Prakash             13.01.1983   10.12.1992                                 │
│ 21.        Hari Singh             01.06.1981   18.06.1991                                 │
│ 22.        Kanwar Pal Singh       22.03.1979   19.04.1991                                 │
│ 23.        Jai Kishan             29.05.1984   21.04.1991                                 │
│ 24.        Bhogi Ram              25.10.1979   18.03.1986                                 │
│ 25.        Dayal Singh            19.09.1979   01.03.1986                                 │
│ 26.        Jagpal                 02.07.1982   07.01.1993                                 │
│ 27.        Krishan Pal            22.06.1978   13.05.1982                                 │
│ W.P (C) No. 2314/2011                             Page 6 of 20                            │
│                                                                           2014:DHC:5873   │
│ 28.        Vinod Kumar                23.02.1982       23.09.1986                         │
│ 29.        Chet Ram                   24.06.1981       09.02.1987                         │
│ 30.        Baleshwar Mishra           16.06.1982       11.12.1992                         │
│ 3.     In W.P.(C) No. 2315/2011,there are six respondents/workmen,                        │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

31. As per Rule 2 of the Pension Rules, these rules are applicable to the Government servants appointed on or before the 31st Day of December, 2003, but shall not apply to persons in casual and daily rated employment and persons paid from contingencies. The respondents/workmen in these petitions were in Central Government Departments and also regularized on different dates as mentioned above. They performed functions analogous to regular employees till the date of their regularization. They were performing whole-time job with the petitioner management and their services with the management were continued without any break. It is not the case of the petitioners that the respondents/workmen are still on muster roll or are being paid from contingencies. Thus, they satisfied all the conditions laid down in the Office Memorandum dated 14.05.1968 and Rule 14 of the Pension Rules, 1972.

32. In addition, the workmen were paid from the contingency fund; therefore, the question arises for the consideration whether such period can be taken into account for the purposes of granting pension. The contingency fund has been established under Article 267 of the Constitution of India in order to meet the unforeseen expenditure. The advances from the fund are made for the purposes of meeting unforeseen expenditure which are resumed to the Fund to the full extent as soon as Parliament authorizes additional expenditure. Thus, this fund acts more or less like an imprest account of Government of India. In the present case, the petitioner does not have a case that the expenditure incurred on account of the payment made to the workmen had not authorised by the parliament. Therefore, it is clear that the workmen were paid from the consolidated fund of India.

33. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.