The Tribunal directed the respondent authorities to decide the applicant's claim for post-retirement benefits within two months, applying the principles established in a cited order regarding temporary post holders.
Directing the respondent authorities to decide the applicant's case within two months applying the cited judgments.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH
Original Application No. 332/00557/2026
This, the 11th day of September, 2026
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J),
Sahdeo Prasad, aged about 73 years, son of Late Barsati, resident of village Buxra, Agyaram, Kunzalpur, District- Gonda, retired from the post of Chaukidar, (T.S.) Mankapur, State, District Sub Post Office-Mankapur, Gonda.
..Applicant
By Advocate: Shri R.P. Shukla.
1.
VERSUS
By Advocate: Ms. Prayagmati Gupta.
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J)
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
2. Through this O.A., applicant has prayed for the following relief (s):
“(i) To issue order or direction directing the opposite parties to immediately release the post retiral benefits i.e. pension, gratuity, leave encashment, Group Insurance and etc to the applicant on the post of contingency Chaukidar (Temporary Status) who retired on 31.12.2012 with effect from 01.10.2013 as admissible to other employee.
(ii) To issued order or direction directing the respondents to release the retiral dues to the applicant with 12% interest per annum with effect from 01.01.2013 on the post of Chaukidar.
Page 1 of 3
(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of present case.”
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the similar fact situations, this Tribunal in OA No. 414 of 2019 [ Udai Chand vs. Union of India & ors.] alongwith other connected matters , passed the following operative order on 06.12.2022.
“ The applicants of the aforesaid OAs were working on the post of Chaukidar, Mali, Mail Career, Casual Labour, Sweeper and granted temporary status at par with Group D employees and served varying from 22 to 42 years’ service in the department.
In view of above facts and circumstances, on the basis of judgments passed by Hon’ble High Court Allahabad and its Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No. 60272 of 2009, Writ Petition (Service Bench) No. 1413 of 2013, Writ petition No. 26696 (Service Bench) of 2021 and Writ petition (Service Bench) No. 18482/2019, applicants of all the OAs are entitled for pensionary benefits.
Therefore, the respondents are directed to grant the pensionary benefits to the applicants of all the OAs within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid direction, all the Original Applications are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”
Further submitted that against the aforesaid order, respondents have filed Writ-A No. 11709 of 2024 and other connected writs before the Hon’ble High Court judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, which were dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2024. Further argued that respondents have challenged the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble High Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 54252 of 2025 which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.01.2026.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant would be satisfied if respondents / competent authority may be directed to consider and decide the case of the applicant in light of the aforecited judgments by passing a speaking and reasoned within a stipulated period of time.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents conceded the aforesaid factual scenario, however, submitted that in case the applicant’s case is directed to be decided in the manner suggested, then at least two months’ time may be allowed for the same.
Page 2 of 3
5. In view of the above, Respondents / competent authority are directed to decide the applicant’s case in light of the order dated 06.12.2022 passed in OA No. 414 of 2019 [ Udai Chand vs. Union of India & ors.] alongwith other connected matters, Writ-A No. 11709 of 2024 and SLP (C) Diary No. 54252/2025 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
6. For avoidance of doubts, it is clarified that respondents shall determine the applicability of the aforecited judgments and similarly of facts OA No. 414 of 2019 [ Udai Chand vs. Union of India & ors.] alongwith other connected matters to the present case.
OA is disposed of in the above terms.
There shall be no order as to costs. Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
Digitally signed by Jay Narayan Jay Narayan Singh Singh Date: 2026.09.12 10:34:33 +05'30'
(Justice Anil Kumar Ojha) Member (J)
JNS
Page 3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent authority must decide the applicant's pension claim applying the principles laid down in the court's cited precedent.
Whether the respondent authority is entitled to an extension of two months to decide the applicant's case.
Whether the applicant's claim for post-retirement benefits is admissible in light of previous similar orders.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Udai Chand vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶25
OA No. 414 of 2019 [Udai Chand vs. Union of India & ors.]
Writ-A No. 11709 of 2024Referred¶30
SLP (Civil) Diary No. 54252 of 2025Referred¶30
Sahdeo Prasad
Union of India
Anil Kumar Ojha
As recorded by the court registry
An original application before a tribunal, most commonly a service dispute before the Central or a State Administrative Tribunal.
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
