Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Binod Kumar Gupta vs Defence on 17 September, 2025
(OA No.716-2022)
(1)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.716/2022
Reserved on:25.08.2025
Pronounced on:17.09.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Binod Kumar Gupta,
S/o Lt. Sh. R.D.Prasad,
R/o Belbagh Bangali Colony,
P.S.Nagar Thana, Bettiah,
West Champaran, Bihar-845438.
(Retired as Assistant, Pension
Paying Office, Embassy of India,
Kathmandu, Nepal w.e.f.31.08.2021) .... Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Puneet Taneja, Sr.Advocate with
Shri Manmohan Singh Narula)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
Govt. of India South Block,
New Delhi-110001.
2. Union of India
Through Secretary,
Ministry of External Affairs,
Govt. of India South Block,
New Delhi-110001.
3. The Controller of Defence Account
Central Command, Meerut,
CDA (CC) Meerut,
Uttar Pradesh-250001. .... Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri G.S.Virk)
(OA No.716-2022)
(2)
ORDER
By way of this OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following relief(s) :-
"8.1 Respondents be directed to fix the pension as payable to Shri Binod Kumar Gupta, as on the date of his retirement i.e.31.08.2021 along with interest @ 12% per annum.
8.2 Respondents be directed to release all consequential benefits to the applicant.
8.3 Respondents be directed to pay costs to the applicant.
8.4 To pass any further orders as the court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the OA, are that the applicant, like his colleagues, was employed by Pension Paying Branch set up by the Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India in Nepal for payments of pensionary dues to the Nepali-origin military personnel working in Indian Army, particularly in Gorkha Regiment. The applicant, who was appointed as a Lower Divisional Clerk (LDC) in Pension Paying Branch, Kathmandu, was appointed on a civilian post sanctioned by President of India through Ministry of Defence and was being paid his salary from Defence Service Estimates under Govt. of India as per Rule 1 sub rule (3) (i) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules 1965. He was promoted over the years to different posts based on seniority and suitability against permanent posts till his retirement as Assistant on 31.08.2021 after rendering service of 34 years and 10 months. Applicant contends that his services were being governed by CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and as such is entitled to the pension benefit in terms of (OA No.716-2022) (3) Rule 10, similar to the other fellow colleague employees like Sh. Shiv Mangal Rai, Sh. Basishtha Narayan Chauadhary, Sh. R.S.Sharma, Sh. Nar Bahadur Singh etc. who are being paid pension in terms of the said Rules. The present OA is filed seeking pensionary dues on the same lines as are being paid to his colleagues so mentioned hereinabove.
3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present OA are the Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, way back in the year 1955, had established Military Pension Paying Offices/ Branch, for payment of pension and other dues of Nepalese ex-servicemen and their families residing in Nepal as there is an entire Gorkha regiment serving Indian Army. Initially, the said offices were established as Temporary Pension Camps and the same were converted into permanent Pension Paying Offices in Nepal. The said offices were established at Pokhra and Dhankutta (which was later on shifted to Dharan) both in Nepal.
4. It is submitted that by virtue of order dated 05.09.1960 issued by President of India through Ministry of Defence, not only sanction of Permanent Pension Paying offices was issued but also sanction was given for various posts for the appointment of staff in the said Pension Paying Offices/Branch at Pokhra and Dhankutta in Nepal. However, for the appointment of staff against the said posts, appointment letter was issued by Indian Embassy who were given the task of selecting suitable person for the said posts. The applicant was appointed to the post of LDC in Pension Paying office, Kathmandu on temporary basis w.e.f.
(OA No.716-2022) (4) 19.01.1987, by the Assistant Military and Air Attaché vide Military Branch Order No.06/87 dated 22.01.1987.
5. It is further submitted that in the year 1995 the applicant was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk w.e.f. 03.04.1995 vide Military Branch Order No. 34/95 dated 31.03.1995. He was also promoted from Upper Division Clerk to Assistant w.e.f. 10.04.2017 vide Military Branch Order No. 03/2017 dated 12.04.2017 in the Department of Pension Paying Offices of Indian Embassy at Kathmandu. The said promotion order was issued with the approval of the Defence Attache, Govt. of India. Salary of the applicant and other similarly situated locally recruited Indian and Nepalese employees with Military Pension Paying Offices/Branch were paid from Defence Service Estimates/Defence Accounts only, as the said employees were working against the posts sanctioned by Ministry of Defence.
6. It is stated that after rendering service of more than 34 years, the applicant retired from the post of Assistant w.e.f. 31.08.2021 with Embassy of India, Pension Paying Office, Kathmandu, Nepal. Thus, from the aforesaid it can be concluded that the applicant was not an employee locally recruited by the Missions Abroad but was an employee who was recruited by the Military Pension Branch and held a Civilian post and was paid from the Defence Services Estimates under the Government of India. In no manner, the recruitment of the applicant could have been equated with local employees recruited in Missions Abroad.
(OA No.716-2022) (5)
7. It is also stated that since the applicant held a Civilian post first as LDC and thereafter on promotion from time to time till his retirement as Assistant and further was being paid salary from the Defence Service Estimates/Defence Accounts, the services of the applicant were under Ministry of Defence, Defence Accounts Department, Government of India. Keeping in view the said position as enjoyed by the applicant, the provisions of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 are applicable to the applicant in line with Rule 1(3)(i).
8. The applicant lays emphasis that the issue of the applicability of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 to the services of locally appointed employees with the Indian Embassy, Nepal, stood decided viz a similarly placed employee of Pension Paying Branch Nepal i.e. in the case of Ram Swarup Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors. vide order dated 20.04.1988 passed by this Tribunal Suit No. 764/1978 (TA No. 43/1986) wherein it was held that CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, applied to the locally recruited persons in view of Sub Rule 3 (i) of Rule 1 of the said Rules. It is submitted that upon retirement, the applicant had a legitimate expectation that pension would be paid to him as admissible under the CCS Rules and especially in view of Rule 10 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and also in view of the fact that pension is being paid to his colleagues having the same status as applicant and who have also retired from the Pension Paying Office, Pokhara, Nepal. However, since no step was taken by the respondents in this direction, the applicant on 01.11.2021 wrote a letter to the Defence Attaché, Embassy of India, (OA No.716-2022) (6) Nepal for grant of pension which was left un-answered by the respondents.
9. It is asserted that keeping in view the fact that the provisions of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules are applicable to locally recruited employees serving in Pension Paying Offices in Nepal who are being paid from Defence Service Estimates, one of the colleagues of the applicant namely Shri Ram Swarup Sharma upon his retirement in the year 1993 was granted pension from Ministry of Defence, Government of India and after his demise it is his family who is getting the family pension. Further, the Nepalese nationals like Nar Bahadur Singh and other similarly situated locally recruited civilian staff paid from Defence Service Estimates who have served in Pension Paying Offices in Nepal and stand on the same footing as the applicant, are also being paid pension/family pension.
10. It is averred that the act of the respondent of not giving pensionary benefits to the applicant is totally illegal and arbitrary as the applicant had served all the years of his service on a permanent post and especially in view of the provisions of CCS Temporary Service Rule, 1965, and further that the applicant was not being treated in parity, with the other similarly situated employees like his fellow colleague Shri Ram Swarup Sharma who was also a locally recruited employee and was getting pensionary benefits. The colleagues of the applicant namely Shri Shiv Mangal Rai and Basishtha Narayan Chaudhary pursued similar issue of payment of pension and ultimately in WP(C) No. 11919/2016 & WP(C) No. 11936/2016, Hon'ble High Court (OA No.716-2022) (7) accepted the stand of the said petitioners that they are entitled for pension being employees of Ministry of Defence and as per the Service Rules applicable to them. Accordingly vide judgment dated 29.11.2018, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi directed the Ministry of Defence to fix their pension and release the pensionary dues along with arrears and interest @ 6% within four weeks, failing which the arrears shall attract interest @ 12% p.a.
11. The applicant states that the Ministry of Defence along with the other Ministries of Govt. of India assailed the judgment dated 29.11.2018 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court after a delay of one year by way of SPL(C) No. 27328/2019 & SLP(C) No. 27327/2019. However, the Supreme Court vide its order dated 18.11.2019 refused to interfere with the judgment dated 29.11.2018 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and dismissed the said SLP and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi having attained finality, the Ministry of Defence has fixed the pension for both employees and issued the Pension Payment Order for them.
12. The applicant also states that there is no embargo under any rules that even if the recruitment to the Military Pension Branch is made locally and not by way of an All- India Test through UPSC or any other statutory forum for selection, the said employment shall not be governed by CCS (Temporary Service) Rules. The only criteria for application of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules is what is provided under Rule 1(3) & (4) of the said rules and in the said rules it has not been stated that the same shall not be (OA No.716-2022) (8) applicable to locally recruited employees. In view of the same itself the entire premise on which the impugned order has been pronounced is without any basis and arbitrary and resultantly it is liable to be set aside. He contends that the respondents erred in law by completely ignoring the fact that similarly situated employees of Nepalese Origin like Nar Bahadur Singh, etc. who were also locally recruited employees, are being paid pension and other benefits to the arbitrary exclusion of applicant.
13. Per contra, the respondents in their counter reply have submitted that the existence of the Military Pension Branch and Pension Paying Offices in Nepal is itself purely temporary in nature and is being renewed every year by Ministry of Defence through various sanction letters. These sanction letters clearly bring out the terms and conditions of the staff which are the same, as laid down in the Ministry of Defence letter dated 5th September, 1960. The Military Pension Branch and Pension Paying Office, Nepal are integral part of Embassy of India, Kathmandu, the terms and conditions of whose recruitment are same as are applicable to the similar staff recruited locally by the Embassy, as laid down in the Ministry of Defence letter dated 5th September, 1960. As locally recruited staff in Missions abroad are not entitled to pension as per MEA rules as in letter dated 08 October 1965 and Ministry of External Affairs letter dated 12 May 1978, the applicant therefore is also not entitled to pension but only one-time terminal gratuity, being equally placed with equals in equal circumstances. It is also submitted that respondents in their counter reply have brought out administrative link between MEA and Indian (OA No.716-2022) (9) Embassy in Kathmandu to make the point that the budget stream being used for the post forms the part of Indian Embassy in Kathmandu's consolidated budget, and therefore, is governed by the same guidelines.
14. The respondents further submit that Pension Paying Offices in Nepal cannot be considered to be an extension of the territory of India for the purpose of Article 14 of the Constitution and hence the applicant cannot invoke Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence, CCS (Temporary Service) Rules are not applicable to locally recruited staff in foreign missions. Further, as per Para 2 (f) of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, pensionery benefits are not applicable to the applicant. Pay and Allowance of local employees of diplomatic mission are paid as per Ministry of External rules and guidelines. Pay scales of local employees are totally different than Indian Temporary staff. In Nepal, they are getting COLA which is a type of DA. Further, it is also clarified that the local employees are getting 'Dashai Bonus' (Dussehra Bonus) which is one month's salary and in India there is no such pay disbursed against Bonus. Moreover, the employee appointment letter of the individual issued by Chancery clearly indicates that the appointment is temporary in nature and at the time of recruitment, the employee has given address of Nepal on which the appointment letter was issued. Further, during his service, the pay was fixed each time under Ministry of External Affair's letters, and the same is also reflected in his Service Book. Only the amount of salary paid by MEA (Chancery) was remitted by MoD. Hence, based on the salary remitted by MoD, it cannot be presumed that these employees are of (OA No.716-2022) (10) MoD. Local recruited staff are only governed by MEA rules and regulations of local recruitment in which it is clearly indicated that only gratuity is payable. Hence, CCS (Temporary Service) Rules are not applicable to locally recruited staff of a foreign mission. Further, as per Para 2 (f) of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, pensionery benefits are not applicable to the applicant.
15. It is submitted that the appointment letter dated 4th December, 1960 issued to the applicant clearly mentions terms and conditions of service. In the said appointment letter, it is clearly mentioned that "the appointment is purely temporary" and "the present appointment does not confer on him any right to earn a full pension and he will be required to retire from service on reaching the age of superannuation". In addition, in appointment letter, the address of the applicant is that of Kathmandu, Nepal. The applicant was governed by terms and conditions as laid down by MEA rules and regulations for appointing locally recruited staff in Foreign Missions in which it is clearly indicated that only gratuity is payable and no pensionary benefits are applicable.
16. It is further submitted that in Nepal due to the special relations between our countries, Indian citizens can take up employment in various organizations. However, under any circumstances these employees cannot be termed/treated at par with Central Government servants in India. Further, in his service records whenever the pay was fixed each time under MEA letters, and the same is also pasted in his service book. Only the amount of salary paid by MEA (Chancery) (OA No.716-2022) (11) was remitted by MoD. Hence, based on the salary remitted by MoD, it cannot be presumed that these employees are of MoD. It is submitted that the applicant's appointment letter wherein it has been clearly specified that his service was purely temporary in nature and appointment does not confer on him any right to earn a full pension and he will be required to retire from service on reaching the age of superannuation. His pay and allowances including terminal gratuity benefits after retirement were also paid as per existing terms and conditions of Ministry of External Affairs as mentioned above.
17. I have heard both the counsels and perused the pleadings on record. The Tribunal in this case vide its order dated 26.04.2024 had sought the following clarifications:
(a) What is the service Rule applicable in the case of applicant?
(b) Have similarily placed employees posted in Nepal been granted the benefits of pension in the past?
(c) Who is the controlling authority for the applicant-MEA or MoD?
(d) Does the provisions of CCS (CCA) CCS (Pension) Rule/Temporary Service Rules apply to the applicant?
18. With regard to the clarification to the points raised by this Tribunal, learned counsel for the respondents has reiterated the assertions made in the counter reply and submitted the following:
"(a) That services of the applicant who was locally recruited in Military Pension Branch, Indian Embassy Nepal Kathmandu are governed by the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment order No.6/87 dated by 22 January 1987 (Annexure-R/1) and not by any service rule
(b) That in some cases similarly placed employees posted in Nepal have been granted the benefits of pension in compliance of judgments/orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, however the judgments are in personam.
(OA No.716-2022) (12)
(c) That locally recruited staff of Pension Paying Office in Nepal are to be treated as any other locally recruited person of the Embassy in Nepal. The matter of appointment, termination of service, pay and allowances etc. come within overall control of the head of the Mission which is under MEA, as clarified by Adjutant General Branch, Army Headquarters letter dated 14 October 1969, No.R.20, (21)/55/3111/D(GS-III) dated 29 June 1962 and latest sanction, letter No.F.No.8(2)/2018/D(P/P) dated 12 March 2024 (Annexure; R/2, R/3 and R/4).
(d) That in the letter dated 14 Oct 1969 (Annexure- R/2) supra it has been clarified that such locally recruited staff are no to be treated as members of the Central Civil Services for the purpose of CCS(TS) Rules or CCS (CCA) Rules and other similar rules, which includes GCS (Pension) Rules. Further, Para 2(f) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, excludes the persons recruited locally for service in diplomatic, consular or other establishments in foreign countries (Annexure-R/5)."
19. Learned counsel for the applicant, on the other hand, reiterates the stand taken in OA that the applicant was appointed to the post of LDC in Pension Paying Office, Pokhara on temporary basis by the Military and Air Attaché vide Military Branch Order No.06/87 dated 22.01.1987. After being promoted in various posts, the applicant after serving for 34 years, retired from the post of Assistant with Embassy of India, Pension Paying Office, Kathmandu, Nepal w.e.f. 31.08.2021. He submits that even before the Independence of India pension was being paid to the Indian/Nepali Nationals serving on the Civilian post and to meet the pensionary demands of such persons, Pension Paying Office was set up in Nepal. Subsequently in 1955, the Ministry of Defence, Government of India has established Temporary Military Pension Paying Offices/Branch in Nepal for payment of pensionary dues to Nepal Ex-servicemen and their families residing in Nepal who are serving in Gorkha Regiment serving Indian Army and also Indo-Tibetian Border Police Force.
(OA No.716-2022) (13)
20. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that due to increased load of work towards payment of pensionary dues, a Permanent Pension Paying Office was sanctioned along with various posts through MoD vide order dated 05.09.1960. However, the task of selecting suitable persons was given to the Indian Embassy at Nepal. Hence, though the appointment letter was issued by the Assistant Military & Air Attache, Indian Embassy in Nepal but the salary for all the locally recruited Indian & Nepali employees working Military Pension Paying Branch was paid by the Ministry of Defence. Therefore, Military Pension paying Branch in Nepal was only an extension of Defence Pension Disbursement Offices which has been set up for payment of pensionary dues to the Ex-servicemen and civilian employees.
21. Based on the above submission, learned counsel argues that the applicant being Government servants appointed on civilian post in defence services and having served for more than 10 years are entitled to the pensionary dues in terms of CCS (Pension) Rules (Ref:- Rule 2 r/s Rule 44 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. He further submits that though the appointment was purportedly not permanent but there is no dispute that such employees have worked for more than three decades and during this period they have also been granted promotions from time to time leading to their ultimate superannuation. Moreover, in terms of Rule 1 (3) (i) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, petitioner has always held a civilian post and has got (OA No.716-2022) (14) his salary from Defence Service Estimates/Defence Accounts and therefore makes the said service rules applicable to them.
22. It is emphasized that the applicant is thus a civilian employee of Ministry of Defence, Government of India, employed with PPO and paid his salary from Defence Service Estimates/Defence Accounts in the Ministry of Defence and therefore the competent authority viz-a-viz the services of the petitioner is undoubtedly Ministry of Defence. In this regard, he draws attention to Delhi High Court's judgment dated 29.11.2019 in WP (C) No.11919/2016 in Shiv Mangal Rai vs. Union of India and Others and WP (C) No.11936/2016 in Basistha Narayan Chaudhary vs. Union of India and Others.
23. Learned counsel for the applicant also draws attention to a catena of judgments that have squarely settled the issue raised in the OA submitting that the case is no longer res integra. The judgments cited are as follows:
a) Mrs. Saroj Devi vs. UOI & Ors decided by this Tribunal in OA No.2615/2019 on 07.10.2022.
b) Union of India & Ors. vs. Mrs. Saroj Devi decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No.9256/2024 on 13.11.2024.
c) Union of India vs. Mrs. Saroj Devi & Ors. decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) Diary No(s).28962/2025 on 10.07.2025.
d) Rameshwar Tiwary vs. UOI & Ors decided by this Tribunal in OA No.194/2021 on 18.10.2022.
e) Union of India & Ors. vs. Rameshwar Tiwary decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No.7188/2024 on 08.04.2025.
24. I have perused these judgments, more specifically, the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court in Shiv Mangal (OA No.716-2022) (15) Rai vs. Union of India and Others (supra). The relevant portion of the said judgment is as follows:
"6. Undisputedly, the petitioners, initially appointed in a purely temporary capacity, were regularised against sanctioned posts on 28.03.1972. A perusal of the appendix to the letter dated 05.09.1960 issued by the Ministry of Defence to the Chief of the Army Staff which forms part of Annexure P-4 to the writ petition, would show that such appointments could be made either on local recruitment or recruited from India or found from existing staff or deputed from offices in India. In other words, it did not provide for any such appointment locally from Nepal only. This sanction letter dated 05.09.1960 and the appendix thereto, also does not even impliedly suggest that the appointments made against the sanctioned posts, were to be governed by the Temporary Service Rules. It is also not the case of the Ministry of the External Affairs that at the time the petitioners were regularised to the post of LDC and/or they were promoted from time to time against the sanctioned posts, they submitted for being treated as temporary or contractual employees and be not entitled to the pensionary benefits. We therefore, find it difficult to fathom a proposition to the contrary. The petitioners having been regularised against the sanctioned posts and thereafter, having been given promotions upto Sub-Treasurery Officers, the initial appointment of the petitioners as LDCs on purely temporary basis, looses its significance. It appears that the establishment of all-the-year round pension paying offices at Nepal was an exceptional establishment of the offices for the purpose by the Ministry of Defence, to cater to its special requirements, in view of the topography of Nepal and the available man-force. Suffice to say, none of the respondents has come forward to point out that any such offices have come to be established in any other part of the world but for Nepal. On the face of it therefore, establishment of such offices by the Ministry of Defence, though, within the premises and possibly, under the administrative control of the Embassy there, cannot be construed to imply that the appointments and the deployment in such offices, ipso facto, has the effect of diluting their substantive rights, which their regular service attracts. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners were governed by the guidelines for employment of local employees in Indian Missions/Posts abroad, in the given facts and circumstances, is wholly meritless. Not only that, if, one adverts to these guidelines, which are annexed to the counter affidavit of the Ministry of External Affairs as Annexure C, it would be seen that these guidelines are for the Indian Missions/Posts abroad and the employees, who are recruited locally and are required to execute a labour contract. It simply implies that such guidelines are attracted only in case of the persons signing the labour contracts or in other words, are the contractual employees and not the regular employees. The (OA No.716-2022) (16) purported clarification given by DoPT copy whereof is annexed to the counter affidavit of Ministry of External Affairs as Annexure F, is therefore, unmerited. For the same reason, the contention of the respondents for the exclusion of the petitioners from the applicability of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 deserves rejection inasmuch as Rule 2(f) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 excludes its applicability to the persons locally recruited for service in diplomatic, consular or other Indian establishment in foreign countries. Rule 2 of CCS (Pension) Rules reads, as follows:
"2. Application Save as otherwise provided in these rules, [these rules shall apply to Government servants appointed on or before the 31st day of December, 2003] including civilian Government servants in the Defence Services, appointed substantively to civil services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union which are borne on pensionable establishments, but shall not apply to -
(a) railway servants;
(b) persons in casual and daily-rated employment;
(c) persons paid from contingencies;
(d) persons entitled to the benefit of a Contributory Provident Fund;
(e) members of the All India Services;
(f) persons locally recruited for service in diplomatic, consular or other Indian establishments in foreign countries;
(g) persons employed on contract except when the contract provides otherwise; and
(h) persons whose terms and conditions of service are regulated by or under the provisions of the Constitution or any other law for the time being in force."
7. A plain reading of the rule foregoing, shows that it is also applicable to civil government servants in defence services in connection with the affairs of the Union of India. In the said context, it is to recall that we have already observed that the petitioners are the employees of the Ministry of Defence and not that of the Ministry of External Affairs and therefore, by no means, the exclusion as provided for under sub-rule
(f) of rule 2 is attracted. Sub-rule (f) pertains to the employees of the Embassy or in other words, the Ministry of External Affairs and not the Ministry of Defence. Any plea to the contrary is therefore, rejected. Even, rule 1(3)(i) read with rule 10(1-B) of the Temporary Service Rules provide for payment of pension to all persons, who hold a civil post including all civilians paid from the defence services estimates under the Govt. of India, which is the case in hand. Relevant rules to that effect of the Temporary Services Rules read, as under:
(OA No.716-2022) (17) "1 Short, title commencement and application.
(1) These rules may be called the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965.
(2) They shall come into force with effect from 1st May, 1965.
(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (4), these rules shall apply to all persons:--
(i) who hold a civil post including all civilians paid from the defence services estimates under the Government of India and who are under the rule making control of the President, but who do not hold a lien or a suspended lien on any post under the Government of India or any State Government;
10 Terminal gratuity payable to temporary Government servants.
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (1-B), a temporary Government servant who retires on superannuation or is discharged from service or is declared invalid for further service shall be eligible for gratuity on the same scale as admissible to a permanent Government servant under the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972.
(1-A) In the case of a temporary Government servant who is compulsorily retired from service as a disciplinary measure, the provisions of sub-rule (1) shall apply subject to the modification that the rate of gratuity payable in his case shall not be less than two-thirds of, but in no case exceeding, the rate specified in sub- rule (1).
(1-B) In the case of a temporary Government servant who retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation or on his being declared to be permanently incapacitated for further Government service by the appropriate medical authority, after he has rendered temporary service of not less than 10 years or who has sought voluntary retirement by giving three months notice in writing on completion of 20 years service, provisions of sub-rule (1) shall not apply and in accordance with the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 -
(i) Such a Government servant shall be eligible for the grant of superannuation, invalid or retiring pension, as the case may be, and retirement gratuity;
and........................................................ ..........................."
As per these Temporary Service Rules, a Government servant, who renders even temporary service of not less than ten years is entitled to pension as per the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. We also take note of the fact that the respondents have equally not disputed the fact that a similar placed another employee Sh.
(OA No.716-2022) (18) Ram Sarup Sharma, who was granted the relief of pension by CAT vide judgment dated 20.04.1988 and that judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Even, on the grounds of parity, the petitioners have been entitled to the relief prayed. In the given factual conspectus, we are dismayed by the fact that CAT repeatedly failed to advert to the genesis of the grievance of the petitioners despite having been approached repeatedly, especially, on the Review Application, which has come to be dismissed vide the impugned order.
7. In view of the foregoing, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the Ministry of Defence-the respondent no. 1 is directed to release the pensionary benefits of the petitioners and pay the arrears with interest @ 6% p.a. within four weeks from today, failing which, the arrears shall attract interest @ 12% p.a. Writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs."
25. I find that the issue raised by the respondents in their counter reply is duly considered by the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid judgment.
26. Further, an identical issue was considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Union of India & Ors. vs. Mrs. Saroj Devi in WP(C) No.9256/2024 decided on 13.11.2024 wherein the order passed by the Tribunal in OA No.2615/2019 dated 07.10.2022 was assailed. The Hon'ble High Court had held as follows:
8. We are not inclined to re-visit the decision in Shiv Mangal Rai, especially as the petitioners carried the decision of the Division Bench in Shiv Mangal Rai by way of appeal to the Supreme Court vide SLP No. 027328/2019, which was dismissed on 18 November 2019 albeit keeping the question of law open.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
12. As in the present case, the petitioners in Shiv Mangal Rai were denied pensionary benefits on the ground that they were locally recruited staff and, therefore, they were not entitled to pension under the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972.
13. As in the present case, the stand of the Ministry of External Affairs8 was that, as the petitioners in Shiv Mangal Rai were locally recruited employees in Indian Missions/Posts abroad, the CCS (Pension) Rules did not apply to them.
(OA No.716-2022) (19) xxx xxx xxx xxx
15. The above findings of the Division Bench apply on all fours to the facts at hand. Jha was also entitled, applying the principles in Shiv Mangal Rai, to be regarded as an employee of the Ministry of Defence, and not as an employee of the MEA. His having been confirmed on the post of LDC on which he was initially appointed and subsequently promoted, he was entitled to pensionary benefits in accordance with CCS (Pension) Rules.
16. We, therefore, find no cause to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, which is accordingly upheld in its entirety.
17. The writ petition is dismissed."
26. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) Diary No(s).28962/2025 arising out of the aforesaid judgment dated 13.11.2024 in WP(C) No.9256/2024 held as follows:
"We see absolutely no reason to interfere in the order passed by the High Court, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. However, question of law is kept open."
27. In view of above, in terms of the ratio laid down in judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to fix the pension of the applicant as payable to him on the date of his retirement i.e. 31.08.2021. Towards this, a revised PPO in terms of the rule position be issued. The respondents will take necessary action in compliance of the above direction as expeditiously as possible and not later than eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which the applicant will be entitled to interest at the prevailing GPF rates till the actual date of payment. No order as to costs.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) Member (A) /kdr/