Allowed

Rajendra Prasad v. D/O Post

CAT11 Sept 2026O.A./360/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an original application seeking regularization of five applicants who were confirmed as full-time casual labourers but denied regularization while others in similar positions received it. The court held the discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16 and directed regularization and consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejected was set aside. Respondents directed to regularize services of five applicants and extend post-retiral benefits including pension within three months; non-compliance attract

Rajendra Prasad vs D/O Post — Pension and Retirement Benefits | CAT (2026)

¶1

OA No. 360 of 2021

¶2

(Reserved on 01.09.2026)

¶3

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD .

¶4

Allahabad this, the 11^th day of September, 2026.

¶5

Original Application No. 360 of 2021

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)

¶7

Rajendra Prasad, a/a 58, C.P. Sweeper Post Office Mahmoorganj Son of Panna Lal Resident of S-10/52 CK-1, Geetanagar Colony, Hukumganj, Chaukaghat, Varanasi Cantt. Varanasi.

¶8

Mahendra Prasad, C.P. Sweeper Cantt. Post Office Son of Jhanna Lal Resident of S-10/52 CK-1, Geetanagar Colony, Hukumganj, Chaukaghat, Varanasi Cantt. Varanasi.

¶9

Raju Prasad, C.P. Sweeper Cantt. Post Office Son of Chhedi Lal Resident of 19/46, Tapovan Ashram Sona Talab, Daniyalpur, District- Varanasi.

¶10

Kiran Devi, C.P. Sweeper Cantt. Post Office Wife of Mahendra Prasad Resident of S-10/52 CK-1, Geetanagar Colony, Hukumganj, Chaukaghat, Varanasi Cantt. Varanasi.

¶11

Shiv Sagar Gupta, C.P. Mali Cantt. Post Office Son of Raghunath Gupta Resident of 29/19, Harahua, Mansapur, District- Varanasi.

¶12

Munna Lal, C.P. Farras, Cantt. Post Office Son of Chhedi Lal Resident of 19/46, Daniyalpur, Pahariya, District- Varanasi.

¶13

Lal Dhar Prasad, Waterman, Son of Late Barsati Lal, Resident of VillageKhapdahawa, Aliuddinpur, Lohta, Varanasi.

¶14

Rajendra Kumar Singh, Farrash/Mali, S/o Sri Ram Singh, Resident of S- 10/188, Baghawa Nala, Hukulganj, P.S. Cantt. Varanasi.

¶15

. . .Applicants

¶16

By Advocate : Shri A.D. Singh

¶17

Shri G.K. Gupta

¶18

V E R S U S

¶19

Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.

¶20

Director General, Posts, New Delhi.

¶21

Chief Post Master General, Hazratganj, Lucknow.

¶22

Post Master General, Varanasi Region, Varanasi, District- Varanasi.

¶23

Superintendent of Post Offices, Varanasi West Division, Varanasi.

¶24

.. . .Respondents

¶25

By Advocate : Shri M.K. Sharma

¶26

RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA

¶27

Page 1 of 9

¶28

OA No. 360 of 2021

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)

¶31

Shri A.D. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri M.K.

¶32

Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents are present.

¶33

By means of this OA, the applicants have sought the following reliefs :

¶34

“(i) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 01.03.2021 passed by respondent no.5 (Annexure No.1 to Compilation No.I) with all its consequential effects.

¶35

(ii) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents authorities to regularize the services of the applicants on their respective posts since the date of granting temporary status of Group 'D' posts and provide salary as well as all consequential service benefits to the applicants.

¶36

(iii) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to grant any other suitable relief in favour of the applicants, which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances existing in the present case.

¶37

(iv) Award the cost of this application to the applicants.”

¶38

The brief facts of the case are that the applicants were initially appointed as Contingent Paid (CP) employees in the Postal Department between 1981 and 1996 and have continuously discharged their duties for about 27 to 35 years. Their case is that, pursuant to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27.10.1987 and 29.11.1989, casual labourers who had rendered continuous service were required to be given temporary status and, after completing three years of such service, were to be treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees and extended the corresponding benefits. The respondents also issued an order dated 30.11.1992 implementing the said directions. Despite having completed the requisite period of service and making several representations for regularization, the applicants were not regularized. They earlier approached the Tribunal in OA No.350 of 2020, which was disposed of on 13.08.2020 directing the respondents to consider their representation; however, during the pendency of the contempt proceedings arising from non-compliance, the respondents

¶39

RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA

¶40

Page 2 of 9

¶41

OA No. 360 of 2021

¶42

rejected their claim vide impugned order dated 01.03.2021. The applicants contend that similarly situated employees, namely Amar Nath Vishwakarma and Devendra Singh, were granted provisional appointment with effect from 01.06.1997, and therefore denial of similar benefit to them is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Hence, the applicants seek quashing of the impugned order dated 01.03.2021 and consequential benefits of regularization in accordance with law.

¶43

The respondents have refuted strongly the contention of the applicant by filing a detailed counter affidavit and have submitted that the applicants, working as Sweeper/Farrash/Waterman/Mali and other contingency-paid workers at Varanasi Cantt Head Post Office and Mahmoorganj Sub Post Office, were engaged as per need and workload without sanctioned posts and were paid wages proportionate to their working hours at the minimum of the applicable Group-D pay scale. They claim regularization/absorption under the scheme for casual labourers, including the 25% quota under the MTS Recruitment Rules, 2010. However, the representation of the applicants was rejected by a reasoned order dated 01.03.2021, pursuant to the directions in OA No.350/2020, and the contempt petition filed thereafter was also disposed of on 31.08.2021. The Respondents relied upon the judgment passed in the case of State of Karnataka & ors. Vs. M.L. Kesari – (2010) 9 SCC 247 dated 03.08.2010. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had clarified some aspects in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi – AIR 2006 SC 1806 judgment. These aspects brought out in the case of M.L. Keshari judgment are reproduced as under :-

¶44

i. The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in the duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or Tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentalities should have employed

¶45

RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA

¶46

Page 3 of 9

¶47

OA No. 360 of 2021

¶48

the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.

¶49

ii. The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not process the prescribed minimum qualification, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.

¶50

iii. The employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in Uma Devi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the onetime exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in Para 44 of Uma Devi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all dailywage/ad-hoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10.04.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 44 of Uma Devi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of Para 44 of Uma Devi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one-time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of para 44 of Uma Devi, are so considered.

¶51

It is submitted that regularization under Uma Devi (supra) judgment was only a one time exercise. It is further submitted that regularization cannot ordinarily be treated as a mode of recruitment or claimed merely on the basis of long service; however, where employees were irregularly appointed against sanctioned posts, possessed the requisite qualifications, and had completed the prescribed period of continuous service, the Government should consider their cases for one-time regularization in accordance with law. Since the present applicants were engaged without sanctioned posts and their absorption is subject to

¶52

RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA

¶53

Page 4 of 9

¶54

OA No. 360 of 2021

¶55

availability of vacancies and the prescribed selection-cum-seniority process, they cannot claim an automatic right to regularization merely on the basis of length of service.

¶56

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶57

The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants were engaged on different dates as Contingent Paid (CP) casual labourers in the respondents' department. They were also granted temporary status as Group 'D' employees, but their services were not regularized. Although similarly situated casual labourers/Contingent Paid (CP) employees have been regularized and extended the benefit of family pension, the applicants were denied similar treatment. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that, during the pendency of the present OA, the services of Applicant No. 2, Mahendra Prasad, Applicant No. 6, Munna Lal, and Applicant No. 7, Lal Dhar Prasad, have been regularized. Thus, only the remaining applicants are yet to have their services regularized. It is also argued that, in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted, as a one-time measure, the regularization of the services of casual labourers who had completed 10 years of continuous service without any intervention of the courts. Therefore, the respondents ought to have regularized the services of the applicants in light of the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra). The applicants made several representations in this regard, but the respondents did not regularize their services. It is further argued that the applicants had been continuously working until attaining the age of superannuation.

¶58

It is next argued that the issue regarding regularization was again considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.L. Kesari (supra) case, wherein directions were issued for consideration of regularization of the services of casual labourers who had been granted temporary status but

¶59

RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA

¶60

Page 5 of 9

¶61

OA No. 360 of 2021

¶62

could not be regularized due to inaction on the part of the respondents. Thus, in M.L. Kesari (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court extended the scope of consideration for regularization. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the applicants referred to the documents annexed with the OA and further argued that, as the services of Applicant Nos. 2, 6 and 7 have been regularized, the remaining applicants, being similarly situated, should also be granted the same treatment along with all consequential benefits.

¶63

8. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra) was only a one-time measure for regularizing the services of those casual labourers whose engagement was irregular and not illegal. It was further argued that the applicants had been engaged on a temporary basis due to the exigency of work and had not been engaged against sanctioned posts. Therefore, they could not claim the benefit of the law laid down in M.L. Kesari (supra) case. Learned counsel for the respondents also referred to the documents annexed with the counter affidavit and prayed that the OA be dismissed.

¶64

9. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire record.

¶65

10. As submitted by learned counsel for the applicants, the services of Applicant No. 2, Mahendra Prasad, Applicant No. 6, Munna Lal, and Applicant No. 7, Lal Dhar Prasad, have been regularized by the respondents during the pendency of the present OA. This fact has not been refuted by learned counsel for the respondents. If such is the position, the prayer that remains to be considered is with respect to Applicant No. 1, Rajendra Prasad, who was engaged as a C.P. Sweeper at Mahmoorganj Post Office on 12.08.1985 and whose services were confirmed as full-time on 01.03.1994. Similarly, the services of Applicant No. 3, Raju Prasad, were also confirmed as full-time on 01.03.1994. A chart reflecting the dates of

¶66

RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA

¶67

Page 6 of 9

¶68

OA No. 360 of 2021

¶69

engagement as well as the dates of confirmation as full-time employees has been annexed as Annexure-2, which is reproduced below:-

¶70

If the chart given in Annexure-2 and reproduced hereinabove is taken into consideration, all the casual labourers shown in the list were granted the status of full-time casual labourers up to 01.01.1996. Rule 154(a) of Manual of Appointment and Allowances of Officers of the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department provides that: " selected categories of whole-time

¶71

RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA

¶72

Page 7 of 9

¶73

OA No. 360 of 2021

¶74

contingency-paid staff, such as Sweepers, Bhisties, Chowkidars, Chobdars, Mails or Gardeners, Khalassis and such other categories as are expected to work side by side with regular employees or with employees in work-charged establishments, should, for the present, be brought on to the regular establishment of which they form adjuncts and should be treated as 'regular employees'. "

¶75

In view of the provisions of Rule 154(a) quoted hereinabove, once the applicants had been granted temporary status and confirmed as full-time labourers, they would have been extended the benefits of salary, DA and other benefits applicable to paid employees, including GPF, etc. Since the respondents themselves regularized the services of Applicant No. 2, Mahendra Prasad, Applicant No. 6, Munna Lal, and Applicant No. 7, Lal Dhar Prasad, during the pendency of the present OA, thus, upon comparing the facts disclosed in the OA regarding the engagement and confirmation of the other applicants, I am of the view that Applicant No. 1, Rajendra Prasad, Applicant No. 3, Raju Prasad, Applicant No. 4, Kiran Devi, Applicant No. 5, Shiv Sagar Gupta, and Applicant No. 8, Rajendra Kumar Singh, are also entitled to similar treatment.

¶76

The respondents' discriminatory treatment in regard to the aforesaid applicants is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Denial of pensionary benefit to these applicants on the ground that their services have not been regularized is discriminatory and violative of aforesaid provision. The respondents can be directed to extend all the benefits that were extended to the similarly situated temporary-status C.P. employees to the aforesaid applicants also. Accordingly, the services of the aforesaid five applicants, which have not yet been regularized, shall be deemed to have been regularized as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra) and M.L. Kesari (supra) cases.

¶77

RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA

¶78

Page 8 of 9

¶79

OA No. 360 of 2021

¶80

Thus, the OA is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 01.03.2021 passed in the matter against the applicants is hereby set aside. The respondents are also directed to pass necessary orders in terms of the observations made hereinabove and extend all post-retiral benefits including the pension to the applicant No.1- Rajendra Prasad, Applicant No. 3- Raju Prasad, Applicant No. 4 - Kiran Devi, Applicant No. 5 - Shiv Sagar Gupta, and Applicant No. 8 - Rajendra Kumar Singh. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Failing which simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum will be attracted. No order as to costs.

¶81

All associated MAs also stand disposed of.

¶82

(Justice Om Prakash VII) Member(Judicial)

¶83

RKM/

¶84

RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA

¶85

Page 9 of 9

Rajendra Prasad v. D/O Post

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad v. D/O Post

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prajakta Prashant Wade vs Central Railway

Dilip Deorao Ukey vs Central Railway

Atul Sirjerao Thakare vs Central Ground Water Board

Prashik Anil Ramteke vs Income Tax Department

Shishir Kumar Sirvastava vs Union of India

Vijay Kumar vs Union of India

Dilip Kumar Pandey vs Union of India

Atul Mishra vs Secretary