TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | Time CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
EntertainmentIPL 2025
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Advertisement

CAT directs PGI to treat contractual employee with 40 years’ service on par with regular

Orders pension and gratuity to be fixed as per CCA (Pension) Rules
Advertisement

The Chandigarh bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal has directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and director, PGIMER, Chandigarh, to treat a contractual employee who worked for more than 40 years in the institute, on par with the regular employees and give him all pensionary benefits.

The bench said the period the applicant worked continuously as a restorer is to be treated as qualifying service for pension and pensionary benefits.

Advertisement

The bench said the pension and gratuity is to be fixed as per CCA (Pension) Rules.

Sixty-two-year-old Ganesh Chander had moved the tribunal through advocate Rishav Sharma. He prayed before the bench to give direction to the PGI to give all pensionary benefits to him and quash the order denying him these.

He said he joined the PGI as a laboratory attendant in 1977, which was a Group-D post on ad hoc basis, for three months. He continued to work as lab attendant on ad hoc basis and was promoted as junior laboratory technician on August 22, 1982.

Advertisement

Later, his services were terminated in November 1989. He filed a petition in the high court. The petition was decided on July 21, 1995 with the directions that the applicant be adjusted against an ongoing project in the PGI.

He was taken back in service and appointed a restorer on contractual basis from April 1, 1998. He retired on November 30, 2021.

The respondents said he was a contractual employee and was not eligible for pensionary benefits.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement