UNION OF INDIA Vs. BITHAL PASWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Union of India should have been satisfied with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. no. 920 of 2000 : Bithal Paswan vs. Union of India & Ors.

(2.) FIRSTLY , an order of 3rd December 2002 is being made the subject matter of a challenge after 10 months before the High Court. As casually as the issue has been treated in bringing the writ petition to the High Court so also the cause which was brought by the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

(3.) BITHAL Paswan had been employed as a casual labourer in 1955. This is recorded in paragraph 2 of the order of the Tribunal. He retired in the year 2000 with approximately 34 years of service. When he made a demand for pension and/or regularization of service, an issue was raised that he cannot be regularized and the question of granting him any pension does not arise. Any regularization which was accorded it was from 1991. This clearly affected the employee 's pension. Reckoning of pension from the date of appointment and instead taking into account only the last decade of his service makes much difference to a Class -IV employee. When the matter reached the Central Administrative Tribunal all sorts of pleas were taken as if an employer is fighting with an employee labourer before a Labour Court or a Tribunal. One such plea was that this employee was never regularized, his functions were seasonal and the question of his receiving the benefits of regularization or full pension does not arise. In this decision the Tribunal recorded, to the effect, that the employee was not a farm hand as he worked for research station. Research is done year round. May be the research station also does farming but it does so for finding knowledge in fields of agriculture. Thus, this plea could not be put in the face of the employee that he was casual in nature.