Tribunal orders retiral benefits for PGI contractual employee

In one of the significant judgments, the Chandigarh Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Director, PGIMER, to treat a contractual employee, who worked for more than 40 years in the institute with 23 years of continuous service, on a par with regular employees and give all related pension benefits.

The Bench observed that the period the applicant worked continuously as a restorer was to be treated as qualifying service for pension and retirement benefits, adding that the pension and gratuity were to be fixed as per the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and paid accordingly.

Ganesh Chander (62) had moved the tribunal through advocate Rishav Sharma. He prayed for directions to the PGIMER to give all pension benefits like regular employees and quash its order denying the same.

He stated that he had initially joined as a laboratory attendant in 1977, which was a Group D post, on ad hoc basis for a period of three months or till a suitable candidate was obtained from the Employment Exchange. He continued to work on the post and was promoted as junior laboratory technician on August 22, 1982.

Later, his services were terminated in November 1989. Aggrieved over the alleged illegal termination of his services by the PGIMER authorities, he filed a petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The petition was decided on July 21, 1995, with a direction that the applicant be adjusted against ongoing project in the PGIMER or in the institute itself. He was taken back into service, but appointed as restorer again on a contract basis on April 1, 1998. He remained in the job thereafter without any break and got all increments in the regular pay scale.

The respondents continued to appoint the applicant on year to year basis without any break till he retired on November 30, 2021.

In their reply, the respondents stated that the applicant was neither a regular employee nor working against a regular post in the institute. As he was a contract employee and as per terms and conditions of his job contract, he was not eligible for pension benefits.

After hearing of the arguments, Rashmi Saxena Sahni, Member (A), said the counsel for the respondents had assured the High Court that the applicant would be considered for the post he was eligible for and was to be given preference in the matter of appointment as against other eligible candidates. “However, I find that the applicant was appointed on contract as restorer in 1998 and he continued to be a contract employee thereafter, his contract being extended on year to year basis till his superannuation. In the process, he served respondents continuously for a period of more than 23 years on contract basis only,” Sahni observed.

The tribunal stated that in view of this, the service of the applicant from December 3, 1998, till the date of his superannuation, the period the applicant worked continuously as a restorer, was to be treated as qualifying service for pension and retirement benefits. The Bench also quashed the PGI order denying the same.