Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Anr v. Sushila and Anr

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 13695/2024 & CM APPL. 57346/2024

3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment dated 5 September 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench[1] in OA 1710/2020[2]. “the Tribunal”, hereinafter Sushila v ICAR

4. The respondent, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, is a widow of one Komal Singh, who was employed with Petitioner 2 Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, a subordinate office of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research[3], the petitioner herein. She applied for release of her retirement dues, including her family pension. As the petitioners were not releasing the said dues, Respondent 1 approached the Tribunal by way of OA 1710/2020.

5. The Tribunal has allowed the OA, following the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in UOI v Kuntesh[4].

6. Mr. U Srivastava, learned Counsel for Respondent 1, submits that the decision in Kuntesh was carried to the Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) No 29280/2018, which was also dismissed on 4 May 2022.

7. Mr. T. Mahipal, learned Counsel who appears for ICAR, is unable to distinguish the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Kuntesh from the facts of the present case. His only contention is that certain relevant provisions of the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme dated 10 September 1993 have not been appreciated in the decision by the Division Bench while rendering the decision in Kuntesh.

8. We have perused the facts of the present case vis-à-vis the facts which applied in Kuntesh. In both the cases, the applicant before the “ICAR” hereinafter 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10254 Tribunal was the widow of a former employee of the petitioner, who had not been regularized prior to his death. In both the cases, the widow sought the benefit of family pension.

9. In Kuntesh, the reliance was placed by the respondent Kuntesh on an earlier decision of this Court in Sharda Devi v UOI[5].

10. Sharda Devi, in turn, followed a decision of the Supreme Court in Yashwant Hari Katakkar v UOI[6].

11. In Kuntesh, the Division Bench of this Court, taking stock of these decisions, held as under:

WP (C) 3018/2012 decided on 25 April 2013 to treat him as temporary/quasi-permanent. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case we hold that the appellant shall be deemed to have become permanent after he served the Government for such a long period. The services of the appellant shall be treated to be in permanent capacity and he shall be entitled to the pensionary benefits. We allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and direct the respondents to treat the appellant as having been retired from service on 7-3-1980 after serving the Government for 18 ½ years (more than 10 years of permanent service) and as such his case for grant of pension be finalised within six months from the receipt of this order. The appellant shall be entitled to all the arrears of pension from the date of retirement. No costs.

14. We see no reason why the respondent should not get benefit of the same view as taken by the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court and the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in the afore-cited cases. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no infirmity in the Tribunal's order and no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.”

12. Thus, the decision to grant family pension in such cases has unanimously been taken by various judicial fora including, various Benches of the Tribunal and this Court in Kuntesh and Sharda Devi and the Supreme Court in Yashwant Hari Katakkar.