Union Of India And Another v. Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench And Another
!"# #$%&%'() )
'%' '*%!!'*!'"+#, #"%"%'#,& -#,&.& #'",!/ *0%'%&",!"%1# ,%2.'!/3 +!'*%4!,+ #'$+ !'* !'"+#, #&5'*#'"&
!" # $ %%%
! "#$ %&'()%*+%,),&
' (
" "
'
)
' (
" "
'
)
* , *+%,),-&%,),'
- .
- /0 / 1 2-/$
& *
.
3
& -004 5
6, 7
3
*
8 9//:;: //- 3
3
7 3
3
8
-< /9 // 2-$
*
>
*
5
? 40912)
//1
1 /@ //1 2 $
;A&
. / /< /-/ 21$ ;A&
.
3
< )
3 5
*
@ B 3 * 7
-C /1 /-<
3 - /0 / 1 2-/$
*
D
3
*
3
! $ -04
?
& 3
*
3
.
3
3 -004
3 //
D
3
.
-< /9 // 2-$ 3
3
;A&
.
, -1
3
-/ 3
;A&
.
3 /-/
. !/0 !!
!3 1!
5 60 //C !<$
-
*
3
:
6 *
-- 3
5 &
.
3
* &
3
, * >
-
? -/<9
/-C 7
!!
/ 1! 0 /- /1 /-0
*
&
3
/ 3
*:
3
>
&
2 "I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. Counsel for the petitioner contends that once the petitioner had rendered service on part time basis starting from 06.08.1992 till 27.02.2012, the same is liable to be counted as a qualifying service for the grant of pensionary benefits.
Counsel for the petitioner further contends that though the petitioner was working on part time basis, but as he worked for about 20 years, it cannot be said that he discharged the duties on part time basis. Further, as the petitioner was working as Peon in a school, it cannot be said that he was discharging the duties part time and the same has to be considered a regular employment for all intents and purposes.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents states that once the appointment was made on part time basis, the same cannot be considered as a qualifying service in view of the provisions of Section 3.17 (A) of the CSR Vol0II, according to which, part time service cannot be treated as a qualifying service.
It is a matter of fact that the petitioner worked on part time basis continuously for 20 years. A person is engaged on part time only for a specific job and for specified period. It cannot be said that an employee, who is working continuously for 20 years as Peon in school, was a part time job. The said
service is to be treated as a long term employment for all intents and purposes.
A Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand's case (supra) has held that daily wage service, followed by regularization of the services, is to be counted as a qualifying service for the grant of pensionary benefits. Once, the daily wage service is to be counted as a qualifying service, it cannot be said that continuous appointment rendered by the petitioner for 20 years though as part time basis, is less than the daily wage service rendered by an employee. There is no justification given by the respondents to deny the said benefit, except the Rule 3.17 (A). The said Rule has already been considered in Kesar Chand's case (supra) and it has been held that the daily wage service followed by the regular service is good enough to be treated as qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits. Therefore, the service which the petitioner has rendered for 20 years as a Peon from 06.08.1992 till 27.02.2012 cannot be ignored for computing the pensionary benefits of the petitioner."
-1
7 "89$
D -90
/-0 !!
/ 1!
7 C /4 / <
;A&
. / /0 / <
D!$ -< 42 -<1@
/ <
-< ;
3
*
* &+ , 3
3
3
?
&
-@ 3 *
#3
1
4 1! 0 ,):;
1# ;-<
3
3
#3 . "89$
7
3
& 7 -C .
#3 . "89$
&
D
&*
//
, -1
3 ;
&
#3 . "89$ 3
3 7& (
) ? 1-/@2)
/-<
B
. *
7& (
3
*
7& (
7& ( 3
-9 D
7& ( 3
3
7& ( * -0
3
).
/ /4 /-0 24$
2-/
7& (
3 / (
3
7& ( *
3
3
- 8
7 7
&
3
(
3
3
<
3
9 99
-:
99
.4.&")3
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No