ORDER : Aggrieved of order dated 18.02.2008 whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellants-writ petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioners') challenging order dated 12.04.2007 came to be dismissed the instant Letters Patent Appeal has been filed. 2. Heard. 3. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 who was appointed on the fulltime post of Upper Division Clerk on temporary basis vide notification dated 09.06.1982 continued to work on the said post till he attained the age of superannuation. Similarly, the petitioner no.2 who was also appointed on a sanctioned vacant post of Peon-cum-Process Server as a fulltime Staff on 05.01.1987 continues to work on the said post and nearing the age of superannuation. Nonetheless, the claim for regulation has been rejected on the ground that the Tribunal constituted under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 is a Part-Time Tribunal which was constituted for a limited period. The learned Senior counsel contends that engagement of the petitioners as fulltime employees for over a period of 30 years but denying them other benefits of fulltime Upper Division Clerk or Peon-cum-Process Server offends Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Assailing the order passed by the Writ Court, the learned Senior counsel submits that the learned Single Judge overlooked the fact that it is the Ministry of Coal, which would sanction post in the Tribunal whereas, vide order dated 12.04.2007 the respondent-Under Secretary (PRIW1), Ministry of Coal, Government of India erroneously rejected the claim of the petitioners for regularization directing them to approach Coal India Limited. 4. Per contra, Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI for the Union of India submits that the appointment of the petitioners would be regulated by the terms of their appointment. It is contended that since there is no permanent post for Upper Division Clerk and Peon-cum-Process Server in the Part-Time Tribunal, the petitioners' claim for regularization on the said posts has rightly been rejected. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent-Central Coalfields Limited while supporting the impugned order submits that the responsibility of the respondent-Central Coalfields Limited is restricted to share the expenditure involved. 6. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent-Central Coalfields Limited while supporting the impugned order submits that the responsibility of the respondent-Central Coalfields Limited is restricted to share the expenditure involved. 6. The admitted facts of the case are summerised thus, Vide notification dated 16.03.1982 issued under the signature of the Under Secretary to the Government of India sanction of the President to the creation of temporary posts of Upper Division Clerk, Peon-cum-Process Server as fulltime Staff (deputation basis), and one post each of Bench Clerk, Nazir and Stenographer as Part-Time Staff to assist the Part-Time Tribunal constituted under Section 14(2) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 for a period of one year with effect from 15.03.1982 and ‘until further orders’, was conveyed to the Deputy Controller of Accounts, Office of the Pay and Accounts Office, Department of Coal, New Delhi. While Upper Division Clerk and Peoncum-Process Server were to be appointed on regular pay-scale for the said post and they were eligible to draw allowance under the Central Government Rules with their T.A. being regulated under the Supplementary Rules, the other three part-time employees were appointed on payment of honorarium. Insofar as, expenditure involved is concerned, the Central Coalfields Limited was to share the extent of expenditure involved when the amount is de-bitable to Major Head ‘528’ AA-Capital Outlay on Mining and Metallurgical Industries etc. 7. It is not in dispute that the temporary posts of Upper Division Clerk and Peoncum-Process Server which were created to assist the Part-Time Tribunal have continued even today and sanction for the same has been issued periodically by the Department of Coal, Government of India. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed as fulltime Staff and they continued to work as fulltime Staff since their appointment in the Part-Time Tribunal. The fact that the Part-Time Tribunal has continued to function even 34 years after its constitution is a fact which seriously challenges the correctness of the decision taken vide order dated 12.04.2007 whereby, the petitioners’ claim for regularization has been rejected on the ground that the working of the Tribunal is part-time in nature and it is not permanent. 8. The fact that the Part-Time Tribunal has continued to function even 34 years after its constitution is a fact which seriously challenges the correctness of the decision taken vide order dated 12.04.2007 whereby, the petitioners’ claim for regularization has been rejected on the ground that the working of the Tribunal is part-time in nature and it is not permanent. 8. May be, the Tribunal was constituted as a Part-time Tribunal and till date it has remained a Part-Time Tribunal however, insofar as, employment of the petitioners in the Tribunal is concerned, the same must be held to have acquired permanency. Except, regularising their service, they have been granted most of the benefits at par with other regular employees. Moreover, in view of fact that the petitioner no.1 has since been superannuated from service while working in the Part-Time Tribunal on the fulltime post of Upper Division Clerk and the petitioner no.2 is still working there, their claim for regularization should have been considered atleast for the purpose of granting retiral benefits to them. The petitioner no.1 who worked in the Part-Time Tribunal for over 30 years and the petitioner no.2 who is also working there for about 30 years cannot be deprived of their legitimate right to receive retiral benefits which all employees under the Government at the sunset of their service expect from their employer. Long back, it has been held that pension and gratuity are no longer charity. True, as yet the petitioners are not the permanent employee of the Part-Time Tribunal, yet depriving them of the equal benefits as admissible to the fulltime regular employees is definitely unfair and the same is arbitrary. Also, when it is considered in the light of the fact that the petitioners had been representing for regularization of their services since long, the action of the respondents definitely seems to be unfair and unreasonable. 9. The challenge thrown by the petitioners to order of rejection dated 12.04.2007 has primarily been rejected in the light of decision in “Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi & Ors.” (2006) 4 SCC 1 . The learned Single Judge has held that the petitioners cannot rely on paragraph no.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi case inasmuch as, the Tribunal is a Part-Time Tribunal. 10. Apparently, the Writ Court overlooked the ratio in Uma Devi case. The petitioners’ appointment was neither irregular nor illegal. Vs. Uma Devi & Ors.” (2006) 4 SCC 1 . The learned Single Judge has held that the petitioners cannot rely on paragraph no.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi case inasmuch as, the Tribunal is a Part-Time Tribunal. 10. Apparently, the Writ Court overlooked the ratio in Uma Devi case. The petitioners’ appointment was neither irregular nor illegal. They were validly appointed on vacant sanctioned fulltime posts and they have continued in service on the strength of sanction accorded by the President of India. The petitioners have been paid salary from the amount debited from Major Head. The petitioners’ claim is on a higher pedestal than those who have been dealt with in paragraph no.53 in Uma Devi case. 11. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if they are extended pensionary benefits by creating supernumerary posts. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is apparent that the impugned order dated 18.02.2008 passed by the learned Writ Court suffers from serious infirmity in law. We hereby set-aside the impugned order dated 18.02.2008. Considering the fact that order dated 12.04.2007 has been passed misconstruing the facts of the case, order dated 12.04.2007 is also quashed. The respondent no.3 is directed to place the case of the petitioners for grant of pensionary benefits before the competent authority and the competent authority shall take a conscious decision in the light of the facts noticed hereinabove without any delay. 13. The Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.