L.Narasimha Reddy, J
1. The applicant state that he was engaged as part-time Vocational Teacher by the Delhi Administration through order dated 26.11.1991. He contends
that repeated requests made by him and similarly situated persons for regularization in terms of the judgements rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and High Courts did not materialize, he attained the age of superannuation on 26.03.2020, and thereafter he is not being entrusted with any
duties. He filed this OA with a prayer to direct the respondents to treat the 28 years of part-time service as holding good for sanction of pension and
other benefits.
2. The applicant states that the post was introduced on the basis of the Kothari Commission report and the appointment was on the strength of an
interview and selection process. He contends that the very fact that he continued in service for 28 years, discloses that the post was permanent in
nature and there was no justification for the respondents in not regularizing his services and not paying the pension. Reliance is placed upon the
judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and some other judgements of the Hon’ble High Court
also.
3. The OA was listed for admission on 07.07.2020, thereafter the matter was heard at some length on 10.08.2020 and it is listed today.
4. We heard Mr. Varun Mudgil, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Esha Mazumdar, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
5. At the outset, we take note of an objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the OA is barred by resjudicata. It is stated that
the applicant filed OA No. 1025/1996 before this Bench of the Tribunal claiming relief of regularization and that the same was dismissed on
02.08.2000. We, however, find it difficult to accept this contention. The reason is that the relief claimed in that OA is one for regularization, whereas
the present OA is filed for pensionary benefits.
6. Coming to the merits of the matter, it may be true that the applicant continued as part-time Vocational Teacher for 28 years. However, no provision
of law or an authoritative precedent to convince us that that service of such a nature needs to be treated as holding good for sanctioning the pension.
How so ever important a post may be or for how so many years an employee may have worked, he can get the pension only when the rules provide
for it. In the absence of such rules, the question of granting pension does not arise.
7. The applicant, in fact made an effort to get his services regularized by filing OA 1025/1996. The very basis for filing that OA was that unless the
services are regularized, he may not get the pension and other benefits. Once the OA was dismissed and the order passed therein has become final,
there is no way that the applicant can get the pensionary benefits.
8. Though, reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi’s case, there is not even a mention in that, about the
sanction of pension, for employees of this nature. On the other hand if we understand the purport of the judgement correctly, it deprecated the
practice of making contractual employees against regular vacancies. As a onetime measure, a direction was issued to consider the feasibility for
framing schemes for reglularization of contractual employees who have been continuing for more than 10 years that too, by subjecting them to the
process for selection. The case on hand is totally different.
9. We do not find any merit in this OA and the same is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
