PARSHURAM YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Original Application has been preferred by the applicant under Section 19 of the AT Act with the following reliefs:

(2.) In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, the respondents passed an order dated 16.12.1991 whereby the applicant was allowed to join on the vacant post of C.P. Chowkidar. Thereafter, the applicant made a representation for back wages and other consequential benefits and when nothing was heard, he has again filed O.A. No. 40 of 1993 which was dismissed by means of judgment and order dated 4.2.1993. The applicant superannuated on 31.1.2009 after completing age of superannuation of 60 years. The said order clearly provides that the applicant who was working as C.P. Chowkidar will superannuate on 31.1.2009 after completing 60 years of age. Before retirement, the applicant made a representation for grant of pensionary benefits and the respondents decided the applicants representation and passed an order dated 28.1.2009, rejecting the claim of the applicant. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred the present O.A.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents filed their reply and through reply, it was pointed out by the respondents that the applicant was initially appointed as C.P. Chowkidar and superannuated on 31.1.2009 and has also been paid all retiral dues which was due to be paid to contingencies paid employees and since he is claiming for payment of pensionary benefits, like pension, DCRG, leave encashment etc. which is payable to departmental Group D employees, since the applicant is not entitled for the said payments in terms of the scheme framed known as Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme. Apart from this, the learned counsel for respondents has also taken the shelter of the Hon'ble Supreme Courts judgment and has also pointed out towards provision of the aforesaid scheme and pointed out the paragraph 8 of the said scheme and since the applicant was not a regular employee, as such, he is not entitled to get any pensionary benefits. As regard the filing of two OAs, O.A. No. 40 of 1989 as well as O.A. No. 40 of 1993 by the applicant is not disputed.