ORDER/JUDGMENT – Ms. Sadhana Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner(s). Mr. Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent – Union of India. 2. Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of Writ Petition No. 8398/2013 are narrated hereunder. 3. The petitioner before this Court, who is a retired employee, has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 9-12-2005 passed by the Pay and Accounts Officer, by which it has been held that he is not entitled for grant of pension. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a Muster Roll Employee in the Central Public Works Department of the Government of India on 5-6-1979 and continued without break in service upto 30-6-1990. Another undisputed fact is that he was appointed as a muster-roll employee, his services were regularised on 1-7-1981 and later on he was absorbed in the services of Airport Authority of India w.e.f. 30-6-1990. The contention of the petitioner is that he is entitled for pension by taking into account the services rendered by him as a muster-roll employee even though he has been absorbed with the Airport Authority of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules and heavy reliance has been placed upon the Office Memorandum dated 14-5-1968 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance. The same reads as under : (1) Benefit of service rendered under Government in respect of scientific employees- See paragraphs 20 to 24 of Appendix 18. (2) Counting half of the service paid from contingencies with regular service. – Under Article 368 of the CSRs (Rule 14) periods of service paid from contingencies do not count as qualifying service for pension. In some cases, employees paid from contingencies are employed in types of work requiring services of whole-time workers and are paid on monthly rates of pay or daily rates computed and paid on monthly basis and on being found fit brought on to regular establishment. In some cases, employees paid from contingencies are employed in types of work requiring services of whole-time workers and are paid on monthly rates of pay or daily rates computed and paid on monthly basis and on being found fit brought on to regular establishment. The question whether in such cases service paid from contingencies should be allowed to count for pension and if so, to what extent has been considered in the National Council and in pursuance of the recommendation of the Council, it has been decided that half the service paid from contingencies will be allowed to count towards pension at the time of absorption in regular employment subject to the following conditions, viz. : – (a) Service paid from contingencies should have been in a job involving whole-time employment (and not part-time for a portion of the day). (b) Service paid from contingencies should be in a type of work or job for which regular posts could have been sanctioned, e.g., malis, chowkidars, khalasis, etc. (c) The service should have been one for which the payment is made either on monthly or daily rates computed and paid on a monthly basis and which though not analogous to the regular scale of pay should bear some relation in the matter of pay to those being paid for similar jobs being performed by staffs in regular establishments. (d) The service paid from contingencies should have been continuous and followed by absorption in regular employment without a break. (e) Subject to the above conditions being fulfilled, the weightage for past service paid from contingencies will be limited to the period after 1st January, 1961, for which authentic records of service may be available. [G.I., M.F., O.M. No. F. 12 (1)-E. V/68, dated the 14th May, 1968.] It has been decided that half the service paid from contingencies will be allowed to be counted for the purpose of terminal gratuity as admissible under the CCS (TS) Rules, 1965, where the staff paid from contingencies is subsequently appointed on regular basis. The benefit will be subject to the conditions laid down in OM, dated the 14th May, 1968, above. [G.I., Dept. of Per. and Trg., O.M. No. 12011/1/85-Est. (C), dated the 10th March, 1986.] (2) Counting of service rendered in Central Government autonomous bodies before their take-over by Central Government. – 1. The benefit will be subject to the conditions laid down in OM, dated the 14th May, 1968, above. [G.I., Dept. of Per. and Trg., O.M. No. 12011/1/85-Est. (C), dated the 10th March, 1986.] (2) Counting of service rendered in Central Government autonomous bodies before their take-over by Central Government. – 1. A question has been raised whether the service rendered in the Central Government autonomous bodies prior to their being taken over by the Central Government and who later on joined the service under the Central Government with or without break, can be allowed to be counted towards pension under the Central Government rules. At present service rendered in the Central Government autonomous bodies which are taken over by the Central Government is allowed to be counted towards pension only in respect of those employees of the Central autonomous bodies who were in the service of those bodies at the time of their being taken over by the Central Government, subject to the condition that the retirement benefits, if any, available to the employees in respect of the service rendered in the autonomous body are made over to the Central Government. The service rendered in the autonomous body in respect of those employees who were not in position at the time of the take-over of the bodies by the Central Government is not allowed to be counted towards pension. 2. It had been represented that this is causing great hardship to the concerned employees who in some cases had considerable length of service in such bodies. This question has, therefore, been carefully considered and it has been decided that the service rendered in the Central autonomous bodies by the employees who left the service of those bodies any time prior to their take-over by the Central Government, and who later on joined service under the Central Government, with or without break, will be allowed to be counted towards pension and/or gratuity to the extent admissible under the rules at the time such persons retire or retired from Government service, the period of break, if any, being condoned. This will, however, be subject to the condition that the gratuity/employer's contribution received in respect of the service rendered in the autonomous bodies will be refunded to the Government with simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of receipt to the date of refund. 3. This will, however, be subject to the condition that the gratuity/employer's contribution received in respect of the service rendered in the autonomous bodies will be refunded to the Government with simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of receipt to the date of refund. 3. It has also been decided that in relaxation of the relevant rules, the orders above will be applicable in the case of the following categories of the employees referred to above : – (i) Those who are still in service of the Central Government. (ii) Those who have retired from service, but are still alive and are receiving pension on the basis of the service rendered under the Government of India only. (iii) Those who have retired from service and are still alive, but did not receive any pension due to non-counting of the service rendered in the autonomous bodies prior to their joining the service under the Central Government. [G.I., M.F., O.M. No. F. 3 (15)-E. V (A)/76, dated the 3rd December, 1977.] 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated before this Court that the issue involved in the present case stands concluded on account of a judgment delivered by the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as by the Division Bench of this Court. It has been argued that the Central Administrative Tribunal in case of an identically placed employee ie., O.A.No. 337/2006, vide judgment dated 6-3-2009, has allowed the Original Application of an identically placed employee and the Union of India being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the Central Administrative tribunal has approached this Court and the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the Writ Petition preferred by the Union of India upholding the judgment delivered by the Central Administrative Tribunal and finally SLP was also preferred by the Union of India and the same has been dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated before this Court that the issue involved in the present case stands concluded and the Department has also issued a letter dated 27-11-2005 for grant of similar benefits to identically placed casual workers and has held that they are entitled to count 50% of their casual services as qualifying service of in the matter of grant of pension after regularization of their services. The letter dated 29-11-2005 is reproduced as under : GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF WORKS CENTRAL P.W.D., NIRMAN BHAWAN No. 22/38/2005-EC3X New Delhi dated 29-11-2015 To The Pay and Accounts Officer, Pay and Accounts Officer (Food Zone) CPWD, I.P. Estate, 4th Floor, New Delhi-110002 Subject : Regarding clarification in connection with the Work- staff on Muster-roll who have been absorbed in an autonomous Body viz. N.A.A.I. On 30-6-1990. I am directed refer to your letter No. PAO/FZ/CPWD/PN/05-06/874 dated 28-9-2005 on the above mentioned subject and to forward herewith a copy of terms and conditions of permanent absorption of the CPWD Staff by the National Airports Authority of India, as in this Directorate's communication No. 23/17/75-EC.X/IV dated 31-10-1977. Further, it is also clarified that the musterroll/hand-receipt workers are not entitled for pensionary benefits and only the regular employees of Work-charge Establishment of CPWD are entitled for pensionary benefits, under CCS (Pension) Rules. Of those casual workers, who have been conferred temporary status under DoPT’s O.M dated 10-9-1993, are entitled to count 50% of their casual service, as qualifying service for pensionary benefits after regularization of their services. Encl : As above. (S. C. SHARU) Section Officer, EC.X. 7. The judgment delivered by the Division Bench in the case of Union of India vs. Subhash Ranjit Chouhan in paragraphs 2 to 11 reads as under : 2. The learned Judge of the Central Administrative Tribunal has held in favour of the employees although it was vehemently disputed by the Counsel for the petitioner/Union of India that even according to the decision rendered by coordinate Bench judgment of Mumbai Bench Camp Nagpur dated 20-6-2006 in O.A. No. 2013/2004 (Ashok V. Deshmukh vs. Government of India and others) whereby the Court had held that the work charged employees do not acquire the nature of temporary service and hence, the services of the respondents/applicants as Muster Roll employees cannot be taken into consideration for eligibility for grant of pension. 3. 3. On the other hand, Counsel for the respondents/applicants has vehemently argued by relying Annexure R/2 under Rule 14 of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 (Swamy’s Compilation, 2002 Edition), filed the present respondents/applicants itself, stating that services paid from contingencies should be continuous and followed by absorption in regular employment without a break, such services would be eligible for qualifying service and half of such service could be counted for the purpose of terminal benefits and would also count towards eligibility for pension. 4. Having given on anxious consideration to the above submissions as well as the records, we find that Respondent No. 1 Subhash Ranjit Chouhan was appointed as muster roll employee with effect from 2-8-1976 to 28-8-1981 and he was regularized w.e.f. 29-8-1981. The respondent No. 2 Ramchandra Malviya was appointed as muster roll employee w.e.f. 1-6-1978 to 28-6-1981 and he was regularized w.e.f. 31-8-1981. They worked uninterruptedly till 1990 when their services were absorbed by the Airport Authority of India. They were asked their option and on expressing their willingness in writing, their services were absorbed w.e.f. 30-6-1990. 5. We find that the learned Judge of the Tribunal has placed his reliance on the DoPT scheme dated 10th September, 1993, which was a beneficiary scheme introduced by the Central Government for the benefits to be granted to numerous casual daily wage employees, besides work charged employees, moreover the scheme was aimed that the betterment of economically weak employees. The Tribunal has rightly taken a liberal view in the matter to extent of extending the benefit to the present respondents. 6. We find no ground to deviate from the stand taken by the Tribunal. Even if the record is rigidly considered, the total regular services rendered in C.P.W.D. by the present respondents/applicants comes to eight years and ten months, whereas the minimum qualifying services prescribed under rule is ten years and the applicants have put in work as daily wagers/muster roll employees from 1976/1978 to 1981, then even if half of the service period is taken into account, according to the Rule 14 (supra), the total length of service rendered by the respondents would be more than ten years, then on this basis also the respondents would be entitled to the said benefits as directed by the Tribunal. 7. 7. It is regretted that neither the Counsel for Government nor the Counsel for the applicants/respondents has placed material on record to clarify the terms and conditions of permanent absorption of the C.P.W.D. Staff by the National Airports Authority of India, where in necessary directions were given to the C.P.W.D. Workers who were absorbed in the National Airport Authority of India as per the Directorate’s Communication No. 23/17/75-EC X/IV dated 31-10-1977 mentioned in. Annexure P/9 a letter by the Section Officer to the Pay and Accounts Officer of the C.P.W.D. 8. Moreover, we find that this is the second round of litigation by the petitioner Union of India, since the previous order by the Central Administrative Tribunal In O.A. 337/2006 in favour of the employees was also challenged by the present petitioner as it was decided ex-parte, due to their failure to file reply In time and was remanded back to the Tribunal by the High Court in W.P. No. 643/2009 by a Division Bench of this Court on 9-2-2009. 9. In these circumstances, we approve the judgment rendered in the case of Ashok V. Deshmukh vs. Govt of India and others (supra) whereby it was pointed out that in case of daily wage employees, they were entitled to count their services at the rate of 50% towards pension at the time of determination of terminal benefits. And thus, in perspective even if it is considered that muster roll employees are on a different footing from that of the daily wage employees and the temporary status cannot be conferred to employees working on muster roll, we find that we should not be shackled by taking hyper technical view of the matter when the Government has itself floated the Dopy scheme dated 10-9-1993 for the benefit of such employees. 10 Keeping in view the socio-economic justice enshrined in the Directive Principles of State Policy of the Constitution, we are of the considered opinion that the claim of the applicants needs to be allowed to bring antiquarian provisions in conformity with the modern concept of justice and fair play. 11. Ex-consequentii, We do not find any merit in this petition. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has fairly stated before this Court that the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by the aforesaid judgment and the SLP has also been dismissed. 9. 11. Ex-consequentii, We do not find any merit in this petition. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has fairly stated before this Court that the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by the aforesaid judgment and the SLP has also been dismissed. 9. In the light of the aforesaid, as there is already a Division Bench judgment on the issue, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to take into account the services rendered by the petitioner as a casual employee (50% of the casual services) while computing the qualifying period in the matter of grant of pension. The aforesaid exercise be concluded within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. In the other connected Writ Petition i.e., W.P. No. 8399/2013, the employee is still in service and, therefore, at the time of his retirement, the respondents shall take into account 50% of the casual services as qualifying services for pensionary benefits after regularization. 11. With the aforesaid, both the Writ Petitions stand allowed. A copy of this order be placed in the record of connected Writ Petition.