Union of India v. Jagbiri Devi

2. Notice to show cause as to why this petition be not admitted. Mr. S.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice.

3. With consent of the parties, the present petition is taken-up for final 2020:DHC:637-DB hearing at the admission stage itself.

4. In this case, undisputedly the respondent’s husband Prem Singh, since deceased, was initially employed as a Chowkidar in the Department of Posts w.e.f. 01.10.1974 on daily wage basis under petitioner No. 5. During his lifetime vide communication dated 30.09.1991 issued by petitioner No. 5 he was conferred temporary status w.e.f. 29.11.1989 in compliance with the Casual Labour (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India dated 10.09.1993.

5. The case set-up by the respondent/widow before the Tribunal was that although there were various vacancies in Group 'D' employees, however late Prem Singh was not regularized during his lifetime even after 26 years of service even though late Prem Singh was enjoying all the benefits of a regular employee. It is also submitted that General Provident Fund was deducted from the salary of late Prem Singh from January 1993 upto 2000.

6. This writ petition has been filed assailing order dated 15.10.2019 made by the learned Tribunal directing the respondents to treat late Prem Singh as deemed regularized with effect from the date of his death and to grant gratuity, leave encashment and family pension along with arrears; with a further direction to release all payments within a period of 3 months.

7. In the O.A. the respondent had also averred that in a decision of the Delhi High Court in an identical case titled Sharda Devi Vs. Union of India:W.P. (C) 3018/2012 decided on 25.04.2013, benefits of family pension had been allowed to a widow. In the said case, the Delhi High Court had taken note of a decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Yashwant Hari Katakkar Vs. Union of India & others reported as 1996 (7) SCC 113. The widow complains that despite the settled position of law as aforesaid, her request for family pension has been declined.

8. While relying on a decision dated 11.11.2016 rendered by the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Khacheru Singh Vs. Union of India and others O.A. 1847/2012, wherein the deceased employee was deemed to be regularized and a direction was issued for grant of family pension, the Tribunal has allowed the respondent’s O.A.

9. Mr. R.V. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in granting family pension to the widow of a deceased who was not a regular employee. He further submits that the order of the Tribunal is bad in law and is liable to be setaside. Mr. Sinha further submits that none of the juniors of late Prem Singh have been regularized; and therefore, no right accrues in favour of the widow.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined order dated 15.10.2019 passed by the Tribunal.

11. It is not in dispute that prior to the demise of Mr. Prem Singh he had served on casual basis since the year 1974 for a period of around 26 years; and was conferred temporary status on 29.11.1989. In our view, the Tribunal has correctly relied upon the earlier decision of the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal and also the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sharda Devi (supra), which in turn has placed reliance on the Supreme Court verdict in Yashwant Hari Katakkar (supra), the relevant portion of which Supreme Court ruling, reads as under: