Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Tarsem Singh vs Central Public Works Division on 1 December, 2025
1- O.A. No. 1159/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Original Application No.060/1159/2021
Pronounced on: 01.12.2025
Reserved on: 20.11.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
----
Tarsem Singh s/o Sh. Surat Singh, aged 60 years, r/o VPO Hara, Tehsil
Dharkala, District Pathankot, 145001. (Group-C)
... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. K.B. Sharma
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, M/o Urban Development, Govt.
of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
2. The Director General, CPWD, Office of the Directorate General,
Government of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.
3. The Superintending Engineer, CPWD, Karnal-132001.
4. Executive Engineer, CPWD, NDRI Campus, Karnal-132001.
5. The Pay and Accounts Office, (North Zone) CPWD, East Block-IV,
Level IV-VI, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110001.
Digitally
signed by
MAMTA
... .Respondents
WADHWA
By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC
2- O.A. No. 1159/2021
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
i) That the respondents be directed to Switch over the applicant to the provisions of Old Pension Scheme (CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972) & GPF Rules by extending him the benefits of the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Satish Kumar and Baldev Singh and consequently release pension w.e.f.
1.2.2021, along with all consequential benefits.
ii) That it be declared that the applicant is entitled to all the benefits under Old Pension Scheme i.e. CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
iii) That the action of the respondents in applying the New Pension Scheme be declared illegal and arbitrary and against the law.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant joined the respondent department as a Motor Lorry Driver on hand-receipt/muster roll basis on 11.05.1993 and worked continuously without any break to the satisfaction of his senior officers. After serving for more than twenty-seven years, he retired from service on 31.01.2021 as a regular Motor Lorry Driver, as reflected in the office order dated 30.01.2021 (Annexure A-1). Although he had been engaged in 1993 and had worked uninterruptedly, his services were not regularized for many years without any reason or justification, and the services of several 3- O.A. No. 1159/2021 MLDs and Beldars in the same department were also not regularized. His services were eventually regularized vide order dated 27.08.2012 with effect from 11.12.2006 (Annexure A-2), and similarly situated employees were regularized with effect from 11.12.2006. After his regularization, the respondents started deducting CPF from his salary under the New Pension Scheme in terms of Government of India instructions dated 26.04.2004.
3. The applicant further submitted that since he had been appointed in 1993, he ought to have been governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and allowed to subscribe to the GPF under the Old Pension Scheme. He repeatedly approached the respondents requesting that he be shifted to the Old Pension Scheme, but no action was taken, whereas similarly placed employees such as Anil Kumar and Des Raj were allowed to remain under the Old Pension Scheme and were sanctioned pension accordingly, resulting in discrimination against him. Other similarly situated employees, namely Baldev Singh and Others, had filed OA No. 1047/2014, and Satish Kumar and others had filed OA No. 1048/2014, seeking a direction to switch them over to the GPF Rules and the Old Pension Scheme, which were allowed by this Tribunal vide decision dated 26.05.2015 and 02.07.2015 respectively and both orders have been thereafter implemented in 2016, granting the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme to the employees concerned.
4. Before the applicant‟s retirement, respondent No. 5 returned his pension case to respondent No. 4, who, vide letter dated 20.01.2021, sought the applicant‟s service book for the period prior to 11.12.2006 to process the matter further. Respondent No. 4 informed respondent No. 4- O.A. No. 1159/2021 5 on 02.02.2021 that the first entry in the service book could be treated as authentic for counting 50% of the muster roll service, subject to conditions under Rule 14 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and sought clarification whether such service could be counted as per the O.M. dated 16.10.2018. On 26.02.2021, respondent No. 4 informed respondent No. 5 that the applicant‟s service from 1993 to 10.12.2006 had been verified and forwarded the qualifying service details and DCRG calculation sheet, requesting that the pension case be processed. Thereafter, gratuity and CGEIS amounts were released by counting 50% of the pre-regularization service, but the pension was withheld without any reason.
5. The applicant, claiming himself being similarly situated to Baldev Singh, Satish Kumar and others, submitted a representation on 10.03.2021 seeking to be placed under the Old Pension Scheme and for release of pension after counting his pre-regularization service. No action was taken by the respondents.
6. The applicant contended that since he had initially been engaged in the year 1993 and had continuously served the department without any break, he could not be treated as a fresh appointee at the time of his regularization in 2006. His past service of more than thirteen years could not be ignored and therefore he was entitled to be governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and to subscribe to the GPF under the Old Pension Scheme rather than being placed under the New Pension Scheme. He relied on several judicial pronouncements in support of his claim. He referred to the decision of this Tribunal in Jagmohinder Singh and others vs. UOI and others, OA No. 585/CH/2012, decided 5- O.A. No. 1159/2021 on 18.04.2013, wherein employees appointed on daily wages and regularized after 01.01.2004 were held entitled to the Old Pension Scheme as they were not fresh appointees. He also placed reliance on the decisions passed by this Tribunal in the cases of similarly situated employees: OA No. 1047/2014 (Baldev Singh and others), decided on 26.05.2015, and OA No. 1048/2014 (Satish Kumar and others), decided on 02.07.2015, both of which were implemented by the respondents in 2016, granting the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme to those employees. The applicant further relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harbans Lal vs. State of Punjab, CWP No. 2371 of 2010, decided on 31.08.2010, wherein it was held that an employee appointed prior to 01.01.2004 was entitled to the Old Pension Scheme and could not be placed under the New Pension Scheme. He also referred to the principle laid down in Satbir Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2002(1) SCT 354, to submit that once a controversy has been settled by a competent court, similarly situated employees should not be forced to repeatedly approach courts for the same relief. On the strength of these decisions, the applicant claimed that he was fully entitled to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme.
7. The respondents filed written statement opposing the claim of the applicant to be brought under Old Pension Scheme. It has been stated that the applicant had been engaged on hand-receipt/muster-roll with effect from 11.05.1993 but his service was regularized only with effect from 11.12.2006, in terms of the departmental communication of 29.08.2012 and the regularization order. They pointed out that the scheme for grant of temporary status required continuous service of one year (240 days or 206 days in a five-day week) as per the DoPT O.M. of 6- O.A. No. 1159/2021 10.09.1993, and submitted that the applicant‟s pre-regularization service amounted to only about four months and therefore did not satisfy that condition. The respondents relied on the office order dated 29.08.2012, whereby the services of the applicant were regularized, which expressly recorded the terms of regularization and stated that the applicant would be governed by the New Pension Scheme, and they noted that the applicant had himself submitted NPS withdrawal forms and received NPS payment. They explained that 50% of pre- regularization muster-roll service had been counted for limited purposes such as gratuity in accordance with rules, but that such concession did not convert muster-roll engagement into regular service for pensionary entitlement. The respondents further submitted that the judgments cited by the applicant were fact-specific and distinguishable and that, in any event, the Directorate (CPWD) had clarified that the applicant was regularized in 2006 under the one-time relaxation and was not entitled to the Old Pension Scheme.
8. The applicant filed rejoinder reiterating his contentions raised in the O.A.
9. We have gone through the pleadings, perused the material available on record and judicial pronouncement relied upon by the parties and considered the rival contentions of both the sides.
10. The undisputed facts of the case are that the applicant was initially engaged as a Motor Lorry Driver on hand-receipt basis on 11.05.1993. His services were regularized with effect from 11.12.2006 under the one-time relaxation scheme and at the time of regularization, the terms and conditions issued to him on 29.08.2012 specifically 7- O.A. No. 1159/2021 provided that he would be governed by the New Pension Scheme. It is also not in dispute that the applicant continued under the New Pension Scheme and subsequently submitted the NPS withdrawal forms, pursuant to which payment under NPS was released to him.
11. The question that arises for consideration is whether the applicant, in view of his initial engagement in 1993 and long service prior to regularization, is entitled to claim coverage under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and the Old Pension Scheme, despite having been regularized in 2006, when the New Pension Scheme was in force and having accepted the terms of regularization stipulating applicability of the New Pension Scheme.
12. On consideration of the material placed on record, it emerged that several similarly situated employees in the respondent-department, who were also engaged on muster-roll/hand-receipt basis prior to 01.01.2004 and were regularized thereafter, had already been extended the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme. The applicant had specifically referred to such instances, and the respondents did not dispute that the benefit of OPS had been granted in implementation of earlier orders of this Tribunal in favour of those employees. Once the department itself had acted upon those decisions and granted OPS to identically placed persons, there remained no rational basis to deny the same benefit to the present applicant. Such decision of denial is arbitrary and illegal.
13. The claim of the applicant also stood fully supported by the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jai Chand vs. State of Punjab and Others, CWP No. 14669/2015, decided on 20.12.2018, wherein it was held that an employee who had entered 8- O.A. No. 1159/2021 service prior to 01.01.2004 could not be deprived of pension under the Old Pension Scheme merely because his regularization took place later. The same principle was reiterated in Babunji Bhagat vs. State of Punjab and Others, CWP No. 14728/2018, decided on 01.02.2023, wherein the Hon‟ble High Court again emphasized that the crucial factor for determining applicability of OPS was the initial entry into service before 01.01.2004, and not the date of regularization, in terms of Harbans Lal's case (supra) wherein the Hon‟ble High Court concluded that "once the entire service of a daily wager is to be counted as qualifying service then his date of appointment will relegate back to his initiate date of appointment i.e. 1988 and he cannot be ousted from pension scheme by applying the date of regularization i.e. 28.3.2005, which is evidently after the new scheme or new restructured defined Contribution Pension Scheme came into force w.e.f. 1.1.2004". The facts of the present case squarely fall within the ratio of these judgments.
14. Further, this Tribunal itself has recently decided an identical matter in Babu Lal Shah vs. UT Chandigarh and Another, OA No. 696/2020, decided on 04.03.2025, while relying upon the mandate pronounced by the Hon‟ble High Court in the case of Jai Chand (supra) and Harbans Lal (supra), and the respondents were directed to count the entire daily wage service of the applicant therein prior to his regularization for the purpose of pensionary benefits under Old Pension Scheme and GPF Rules. The present applicant stands on the same footing.
15. The contention of the respondents based on the letter dated 29.08.2012, wherein a condition was imposed that the applicant would 9- O.A. No. 1159/2021 be governed by the New Pension Scheme, cannot be sustained. Such a unilateral stipulation, inserted long after the applicant‟s initial engagement, cannot override his statutory right to be considered under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. An executive instruction cannot negate constitutional guarantees of equality, nor can it defeat judicially settled principles regarding determination of pensionary entitlement based on initial date of appointment. The said condition, being arbitrary and contrary to law laid down by constitutional courts, cannot stand in the way of granting the rightful pension benefits to the applicant.
16. In view of the above discussion, the applicant is held entitled to be governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and the Old Pension Scheme. The respondents are directed to extend to him all consequential pensionary benefits under the Old Pension Scheme, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law. The Original Application stands allowed. No costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Dated: 01.12.2025 „mw‟