- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29338-DB WP No. 21828 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 21828 OF 2024 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI G. VEERANNA, S/O GIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, EX-TS/CL. GROUP -D, BG CITY RMS BG 23, R/AT 1085, 2ND CROSS, NGO COLONY, KAMALANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560079. …PETITIONER (BY SRI M.T. NANAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI GEORGE ANTHONY CRUZ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT. OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KARNATAKA CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560001. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29338-DB WP No. 21828 of 2024 3. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT BENGALURU SORTING DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560001. 4. THE HEAD RECORD OFFICER, BENGALURU SORTING DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2024 MADE IN OA No. 170/001/491/2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.11.2021 IN OA No.170/001/491/2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.11.2021 IN No.KA-06/2013-14/CAT ANNEXURE-A5 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.3. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri M.T. Nanaiah, learned Senior Counsel, appearing along with Sri George Anthony Cruz, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Sri H. Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for the respondents. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29338-DB WP No. 21828 of 2024 2. The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, in O.A. No.170/001/491/2022, whereby the application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was serving as a Temporary Status Casual Labourer (TSCL), on par with Group-D employees, under the respondents. He was charged with criminal offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 511 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By judgment dated 24.01.2009 in C.C. No.24087/2007, he was convicted. Pursuant to the conviction, a show-cause notice was issued proposing to dispense with his services. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were dispensed on the ground of his conviction in the criminal case. In the criminal appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction, the sentence was initially suspended and subsequently, by judgment dated 14.02.2011, the conviction was set aside. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29338-DB WP No. 21828 of 2024 4. The petitioner submitted a representation on 13.04.2011 seeking reinstatement into service, which came to be rejected by order dated 31.01.2013. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed O.A. No.245/2013 before the Tribunal, challenging the orders dated 26.08.2009 and 31.01.2013. The Tribunal, by order dated 11.06.2015, allowed the application and directed reinstatement of the petitioner. The respondents challenged the said order in W.P. No.31904/2015, which came to be allowed by order dated 28.01.2021, modifying the Tribunal's order by directing reinstatement of the petitioner with payment of 50% backwages from 26.08.2009 till the date of superannuation. As submitted, the direction regarding payment of backwages has been complied with. 5. The petitioner preferred O.A. No.491/2022 seeking arrears of salary for the period from 26.04.2007 to 30.07.2009, and for payment of pension. The Tribunal observed that the petitioner’s services were dispensed with on account of his conviction in the criminal case. His request for reinstatement was initially rejected; however, the Tribunal subsequently directed reinstatement on par with Group-D employees. This - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29338-DB WP No. 21828 of 2024 order was modified by this Court in W.P. No.31904/2015, dated 28.01.2021, directing payment of 50% backwages from 26.08.2009 till the date of superannuation. The Tribunal held that the petitioner is not entitled to salary for the period from 26.04.2007 to 30.07.2009 on the principle of ‘No Work – No Pay’. It was further held that this Court, in its order dated 28.01.2021, directed payment of 50% backwages only from 26.08.2009 and not for the earlier period. 6. Insofar as the claim for pension is concerned, the Tribunal held that the petitioner was not regularized as a Group-D employee. He was only treated on par with temporary Group-D employees, and unless he was regularized as a permanent Group-D employee, he would not be entitled to pension. The Tribunal further observed that the petitioner was not a subscriber to the General Provident Fund (GPF), and hence, neither pension nor GPF benefits are admissible to a Temporary Status Casual Labourer (TSCL). 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's request for reinstatement, made after his acquittal in the criminal case, was rejected. However, in O.A. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29338-DB WP No. 21828 of 2024 No.245/2013, the Tribunal directed his reinstatement. Though the said order was challenged before this Court in W.P. No.31904/2015, it was modified only to the extent of directing payment of 50% backwages from 26.08.2009. It is contended that, in view of the said modification, the petitioner is entitled to arrears of salary for the period from 26.04.2007 to 30.07.2009. 7.1 Learned counsel further submits that in the case of Smt. Rajeswari, a similarly placed employee working as a Temporary Status Casual Labourer (TSCL), the Tribunal directed payment of pension even without regularization. The said order was confirmed by this Court in W.P. No.7253/2012, wherein it was held that a TSCL is also entitled to pension. Placing reliance on the principle of parity, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is similarly entitled to pension. 8. Per contra, Sri H. Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents, submits that the petitioner's services were dispensed with effect from 26.08.2009 on account of his conviction in a criminal case. It is contended that the petitioner was - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29338-DB WP No. 21828 of 2024 unauthorisedly absent from 26.04.2007 to 30.07.2009 and, therefore, is not entitled to salary for the said period in view of the principle of 'No Work – No Pay'. It is further submitted that the Tribunal, while passing the order in O.A. No.245/2013, did not examine the issue of regularisation of the said period of unauthorised absence and merely directed reinstatement from 26.08.2009. This Court, in W.P. No.31904/2015, modified the Tribunal’s order by directing payment of 50% backwages from 26.08.2009, i.e., the date on which his services were dispensed with, till the date of his superannuation on 15.09.2017. It is submitted that the said backwages, as ordered by this Court, have been duly paid along with consequential benefits. 8.1 Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India further submits that the petitioner was only conferred with temporary status on par with a regular Group-D employee. It is contended that such conferment of temporary status does not amount to regularization of service to entitle for pension. 8.2 Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India further submits that the petitioner is not eligible for pension, except for the benefits under the Central Government Employees Group - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29338-DB WP No. 21828 of 2024 Insurance Scheme (CGEGIS), which has already been paid. It is submitted that upon grant of temporary status, the petitioner’s GPF subscription was cancelled, contributions were discontinued, and the entire amount standing to the credit of his GPF account was refunded. Hence, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to pension. 9. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers. 10. As is evident from the record, the petitioner was initially engaged as a casual labourer and was subsequently conferred temporary status, treating him on par with Group-D employees, in the year 1995. The petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from 26.04.2007 to 25.08.2009, and his services were dispensed with on 26.08.2009. Further, the petitioner was convicted in criminal case on 24.01.2009. The said termination was challenged by the petitioner in O.A. No.245/2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench. The Tribunal directed that the petitioner be taken back into service, treating the period from 26.08.2009 for all purposes except for payment of backwages. The said order was modified by this - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29338-DB WP No. 21828 of 2024 Court in W.P. No.31904/2015. In the meantime, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. This Court, while modifying the order of the Tribunal, directed payment of 50% backwages from the date of termination, i.e., 26.08.2009, till the date of superannuation on 15.09.2017. The said 50% backwages along with other admissible consequential benefits have been paid, which is not in dispute. 11. The application filed in O.A. No.491/2022, seeking arrears of salary for the period of unauthorized absence from 26.04.2007 to 30.07.2009 and for grant of pension, came to be rejected on the ground that a Temporary Status Casual Labourer is not entitled to pension in the absence of regularization of service. The claim of the petitioner for arrears of salary for the said period of unauthorized absence is not tenable for more than one reason. Firstly, the petitioner’s services were dispensed with on 26.08.2009 and he attained superannuation on 15.09.2017. Though the Tribunal had directed that the petitioner be taken back into service treating the period from 26.08.2009 as duty for all purposes, the said order was modified by this Court in W.P. No.31904/2015 by - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29338-DB WP No. 21828 of 2024 directing payment of 50% backwages from 26.08.2009 till the date of superannuation on 15.09.2017. These orders have attained finality. Neither the Tribunal in O.A. No.245/2013 nor this Court in W.P. No.31904/2015 treated the period of unauthorized absence as qualifying service for any purpose. The claim for arrears of salary for the said period has been re- agitated by the petitioner in O.A. No.491/2022. 12. The petitioner contends that he had attended duties during the period of alleged unauthorized absence. However, it is submitted that due to an oversight, benefits were claimed only from 26.08.2009. This contention is devoid of merit and unsupported by any evidence on record. Further, the said contention stands belied for the additional reason that the petitioner was convicted on 24.01.2009, and the sentence was suspended only on 19.02.2009. During this intervening period, the petitioner was in judicial custody undergoing sentence. This circumstance clearly disproves the petitioner’s assertion that he was on duty during the period from 26.04.2007 to 30.07.2009. In the absence of any material to substantiate that the petitioner had attended duty during the said period, the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29338-DB WP No. 21828 of 2024 Tribunal has rightly held that he is not entitled to any salary by application of the principle of 'No Work – No Pay'. The Tribunal has also rightly observed that the petitioner failed to produce any evidence to establish that he was on duty from 26.04.2007 to 25.07.2009 so as to claim salary for the said period. 13. Insofar as the claim for pension is concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was conferred with temporary status as a casual labourer and was treated on par with Group-D employees with effect from 01.01.1998. However, it is also undisputed that the services of the petitioner were never regularized. Reinstatement of the petitioner as a Temporary Status Casual Labourer does not by itself confer any entitlement to pension, unless the competent authority accords regularization as a Group-D employee. Furthermore, at the time of termination of service on 26.08.2009, the petitioner was not a subscriber or member of the General Provident Fund (GPF). The very scheme under which temporary status was granted clearly stipulates that such employees are not entitled to pension or retirement benefits unless and until their services are regularized. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29338-DB WP No. 21828 of 2024 14. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal holding that the petitioner is not entitled to pension. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Rajeswari in O.A. No.138/2010, dated 28.12.2011; the order of this Court in W.P. No.7253/2012, dated 11.07.2013; and the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C.C.) No.1135/2014, dated 08.07.2014, to contend that a casual employee who is conferred with temporary status on par with a Group-D employee is entitled to pension. However, the said judgments are not applicable to the present case in view of the specific observation made by this Court that the order in W.P. No.7253/2012 was not intended to lay down any legal principle, but was rendered as an exceptional case, taking into account the hardship faced by the respondent therein. In view of the said observations, the decisions relied upon cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner on the ground of parity. It is pertinent to note that this Court has not held, as a general proposition, that - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29338-DB WP No. 21828 of 2024 employees conferred with temporary status are entitled to pension. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52