Dismissed¶48

Union of India v. The Registrar

Madras HC9 Apr 2026WP/29692/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Family pension; retiral benefits; casual labourer; temporary status; regularization denied for want of vacancies; death in harness; CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972; Rule 49(3); Department of Posts; Airmail Sorting Division Chennai; Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Madras Bench; O.A.No.56 of 2020; O.A.No.292 of 2019; Section 226 Constitution of India; Writ of Certiorari; Union of India; High Court of Judicature at Madras; WP No. 29692 of 2023; connected WMP No. 29302 of 2023; eight-week compliance direction; decision dated 09-04-2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; petitioners directed to comply with the Tribunal's order in O.A.No.56 of 2020 dated 31.03.2023 within eight weeks; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶48

Union of India Vs The Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench dated 31.03.2023 in O.A.No.56 of 2020 directing grant of pension and retiral benefits to the late employee's widow is liable to be quashed in this Writ Petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

The late employee was not regularized for want of vacancies; this cannot be cited as a reason by the petitioners for denying family pension.

¶40

Key takeaways

Similarly placed persons were regularized depending upon vacancies and were granted family pension and other retirement benefits on attaining superannuation, whereas the 2nd respondent's husband was denied such relief on the ground that he worked only on temporary basis till his death.ratio¶40
The Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding, made after considering various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that the late employee's wife is eligible for retiral benefits, including family pension, as per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Division Bench: P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, JJ.; order dictated by P. Velmurugan, J.) dismissed W.P. No. 29692 of 2023 challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench order dated 31.03.2023 in O.A.No.56 of 2020, which had directed grant of pension and retiral benefits to the widow of late L.Ramakrishnan. The deceased worked as a Casual Labourer in the Airmail Sorting Division, Chennai, was conferred temporary status in 2001, and died in harness on 11.09.2013 without regularization for want of vacancies. Holding that non-regularization for want of vacancies cannot be cited as a reason to deny family pension, noting that similarly placed persons regularized against vacancies received family pension and retirement benefits, and affirming the widow's eligibility for retiral benefits, including family pension, as per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order, dismissed the Writ Petition, and directed the Union of India and Postal authorities to comply within eight weeks. Connected WMP closed; no costs.

¶1

WP No. 29692 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P. VELMURUGAN AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

¶6

WP No. 29692 of 2023

¶7

and

¶8

WMP No. 29302 of 2023

¶9

Union Of India, Rep. By The Secretary, Ministry Of Personnel, Public Grievances And Pensions, Department Of Pensions And Pensioners Welfare, 3^rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi - 110 003.

¶10

The Secretary, Ministry Of Communications and IT, Department Of Posts, Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110 001.

¶11

The Chief Postmaster General Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶12

The Assistant Director (Rectt), O/o The Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶13

The Superintendent RMS, Chennai Airmail Sorting Division, Chennai - 600 016.

¶14

..Petitioner(s)

¶15

¶16

__________ Page1 of 6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

WP No. 29692 of 2023

¶19

1. The Registrar,

¶20

Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, High Court Building, Chennai – 600 104.

¶21

2. R.Yosotha

¶22

..Respondent(s)

¶23

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the Tribunal in its impugned order dated 31.03.2023 in OA 56/2020 passed by the 1^st Respondent Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and quash the same.

¶24

For Petitioners:	Mr.M.Karthikeyan
For Respondents:	Mr.R.Malaichamy for R2 R1- Tribunal

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN,J.)

¶27

The Writ Petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’), dated 31.03.2023.

¶28

2.The 2^nd respondent’s husband late L.Ramakrishnan, who was working as a Casual Labourer in the Airmail Sorting Division, Chennai, along with other employees, was conferred with temporary status in the year 2001. He died on 11.09.2013 while he was in service. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent made a representation before the appropriate authority vide letter dated 12.12.2018,

¶29

Page2 of 6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

WP No. 29692 of 2023

¶32

seeking for grant of pension for the service rendered by her husband, which was rejected by the Assistant Director (Recruitment) by order dated 05.02.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the 2^nd respondent filed O.A.No.292 of 2019 before the Tribunal, which was disposed of by an order dated 11.03.2019 with a direction to the petitioners herein to pass a reasoned and speaking order. Thereafter, the 5^th petitioners herein had passed an order on 08.08.2019 rejecting the claim of the 2^nd respondent for grant of family pension. As against the order dated 08.08.2019, the 2^nd respondent had preferred O.A.No.56 of 2020 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order dated 31.03.2023, had allowed the application and directed the petitioners to grant pension and other retiral benefits to the late employee within a stipulated time. The said order of the Tribunal is put under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

¶33

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the husband of the 2^nd respondent was working only as a Casual Labourer and thereafter, he was conferred with the temporary status. The learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the temporary casual labourers are not governed by CCS Rules and hence, they are not eligible for pension. Since the employee was not regularized, he would not be entitled for grant of pension. The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order of the Tribunal is contrary to Rule 49(3) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which stipulates a minimum service of 10 years as regular employee for grant of pension.

¶34

Page3 of 6

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

WP No. 29692 of 2023

¶37

4.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent would submit that since the late employee served for almost 29 years from the year 1984 till the date of his death as Casual Labourer on temporary basis, he is entitled for family pension. However, the petitioners did not regularize the late employee’s service for want of vacancy and thus, this cannot be cited as a reason for not sanctioning the family pension. The learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal, by placing reliance on its own decisions, as well as the judgments of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, had rightly ordered for the benefit of pension. Therefore, the learned counsel sought for dismissal of this Writ Petition.

¶38

5.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.

¶39

6.Admittedly, the husband of the 2^nd respondent was working as a Casual

¶40

Labourer from 1984 till 1991. Subsequently, he was conferred with temporary status till the date of his expiry in the year 2013. The similarly placed persons were regularized depending upon the vacancies and they were granted the family pension and other retirement benefits on attaining the age of superannuation. However, the 2^nd respondent’s husband was not granted the said relief by the petitioners stating that he worked only on temporary basis till his death. The late employee was also not regularized for want of vacancies. Thus, this cannot be cited as a reason by the petitioners for denying family pension. If

¶41

Page4 of 6

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

WP No. 29692 of 2023

¶44

the 2^nd respondent’s husband would have been alive, his services would have been regularized. Since the late employee had expired, the petitioners cannot deny the eligible family pension and other benefits to his family, which is

¶45

contrary to a catena of judgments made by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶46

7.The Tribunal, by considering all the aforesaid aspects and also by citing

¶47

various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, had rightly held the late employee’s wife to be eligible for retiral benefits, including family pension as per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Thus, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶48

8.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. In view of the dismissal of this Writ Petition, the petitioners are directed to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.56 of 2020, dated 31.03.2023, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶49

(P.V.,J.) (K.G.T.,J.) 09-04-2026

¶50

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No hvk

¶51

__________ Page5 of 6

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

WP No. 29692 of 2023

¶54

P.VELMURUGAN,J. and K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J.