SUPERINTENDING ARCHAEOLOGIST Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India by this order assails the order dated 1st June, 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.2205/2004 (hereinafter referred to as the `impugned order'). By the impugned order the Tribunal directed the petitioner herein to consider respondent no.2-Sardar Singh services' prior to as also post regularization till his retirement as qualifying service for pension/retiral benefits. Petitioner also was directed to pay the arrears in this behalf within a period of three months from the date of communication of the said order. Petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus to seek stay of the implementation of the impugned order.

(2.) Notice to show cause was issued in the writ petition along with a direction to the petitioner to file on record the details of the number of days respondent no.2 worked with the petitioner from the year 1970 till 2003. This court also restrained respondent no.2 from taking coercive steps to enforce the impugned order during the hearing of the writ petition. Pleadings were completed and after hearing parties, the judgment reserved on 5th July, 2007. The brief facts of the case are:- i) Respondent No. 2 was employed as a daily wager with the petitioner in 1970. In 1989, Respondent No. 2 filed an OA No. 1290/1989 before Central Administrative Tribunal seeking regularization of his service with the petitioner. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to decide respondents claim for regularization vide order dated 5.2.1993. ii) In 1999, Respondent No. 2 filed another O.A. No. 513/99 praying that his services with the petitioner be regularized. He also claimed wages of regular employees. Tribunal vide order dated 31.7.2000, directed petitioner to consider the claim of respondent for regularization in the post of mason. In compliance with the order of the Tribunal, a specially constituted committee recommended the names of eligible candidates. Interviews were held and respondent No. 2 and two other candidates were selected by the petitioner on 21.5.2001 and offers of appointment were accordingly issued to them. (iii) On 2.5.2002 respondent No. 2 filed a contempt petition No. 181/2002 in O.A. 513/99 alleging that he had not been regularized despite the orders of Tribunal. The petition was subsequently withdrawn leaving it open to respondent no.2 to pursue his remedies in accordance with law. iv) On 3.9.2003, an office order was issued by the petitioner appointing respondent No. 2 on probation for a period of two years on the post of mason in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- with effect from 31.7.2003. Vide an office order dated 28.1.2004 respondent No. 2 was informed of his impending superannuation. Respondent no.2 in the event superannuated on 31.1.2004 v) Respondent No. 2 made a request on 15.4.2004 to the petitioner for grant of pension. Petitioner vide letter dated 11.10.2004 informed respondent no.2 that he was not entitled to pension since he had rendered less than 10 years of qualifying service under the provisions of Section 49 (2) b of CCS Pension Rules. vi) On 27.8.2004, Respondent No. 2 filed an O.A. No. 2205/2004 before Tribunal seeking directions to the petitioner that respondent herein be treated in service since 1970 and to give all pensionary/retiral benefits for services rendered for more than 34 years. The Tribunal vide the impugned order held that respondent No. 2 was entitled to the pensionary/retiral benefits and the same be paid within 3 months of communication of the order.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Keshav Dayal on behalf of the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 2 had not rendered requisite 10 years of regular service with the petitioner. He had rendered only limited Govt. service of about 4 months 29 days, post regularisation and is, therefore, not entitled to pension under the provisions of Rule 49 (2) b of the CCS Pension Rules 1972. Learned Counsel urged that Respondent No.2 had not worked regularly and continuously with the petitioner department even when he was working as a daily/casual-wager/mason and had not worked for more than 240 days consecutively in any 2 years.