Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Mrs Manwinder Kaur vs Dpi Ut Chandigarh on 29 November, 2024
1- O.A. No. 1311/2017, 35/18, 1313/17,1033/18
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Pronounced on: 29.11.2024
Reserved on: 08.11.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
1. Original Application No.1311/2017
Mrs. Dheerja Sharma wife of Sh. B.M. Sharma, age 50 years working as
Social Studies, Mistress, (T.G.T.) presently working at Govt. Model
Senior Secondary School, Sector: (resident Chandigarh) of 16,
Chandigarh House No. 130, Sector: (Group-C) 23-A,
.... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Rishav Sharma
Versus
1. Chandigarh Administration through Secretary, Education, U.T.
Secretariat, Sector: 9, Chandigarh.
2. The Director Public Instructions (S), Chandigarh Administration, U.T.
Secretariat, Sector: 9, Chandigarh.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidayalaya Sangathan (KVS),
Regional Office, SCO: 72-73, Sector: 31-A, Chandigarh
... .Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Arvind Moudgil for R-1 and 2
Mr. R.K. Sharma for R-3
2. Original Application No.060/00035/2018
Mrs. Madhumita Barua wife of Sh. Ashok Kumar Barua age 47 years
presently working as Mathematics Mistress, Government Model High
School, Sector: 32-D, Chandigarh (resident of House No. 1454A, Sector:
20B, Chandigarh) Group "c"
.... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Rishav Sharma
Versus
1. Chandigarh Administration through Secretary, Education, U.T.
Secretariat, Sector: 9, Chandigarh.
2. The Director Public Instructions (S), Chandigarh Administration,
U.T.Secretariat, Sector: 9, Chandigarh.
2- O.A. No. 1311/2017, 35/18, 1313/17,1033/18
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidayalaya Sangathan (KVS),
Regional Office, SCO: 72-73, Sector: 31-A, Chandigarh.
... .Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Arvind Moudgil for R-1 and 2
Mr. R.K. Sharma for R-3
3. Original Application No. 060/1033/2018
Jatinder Kumra wife of Sh. Chander Mohan Kumra age 50 years
presently working as Lecturer (Chemistry), Government Model Senior
Secondary School, Sector:18, Chandigarh (resident of House No. 230-A,
Sector: 51-A, Chandigarh). 160051.
..... Applicant
Versus
1. Chandigarh Administration through Secretary, Education, U.T.
Secretariat, Sector: 9, Chandigarh.
2. The Director Public Instructions (S), Chandigarh Administration,
U.T.Secretariat, Sector: 9, Chandigarh -160009
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidayalaya Sangathan (KVS),
Regional Office, SCO: 72-73, Sector: 31-A, Chandigarh-160031.
... .Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. A.L. Nanda for R-1 and 2
Mr. R.K. Sharma for R-3
4. Original Application No.060/01313/2017
Mrs. Manwinder Kaur wife of Sh. Satnam Singh age 49 years working as
T.G.T. Social Studies (Mistress) at Government Model Senior Secondary
School, Sector: 22-A, Chandigarh (resident of House No. 181, Sector:
23-A, Chandigarh).
..... Applicant
Versus
1. Chandigarh Administration through Secretary, Education, U.T.
Secretariat, Sector: 9, Chandigarh.
2. The Director Public Instructions (S), Chandigarh Administration, U.T.
Secretariat, Sector: 9, Chandigarh-160009
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidayalaya Sangathan (KVS),
Regional Office, SCO: 72-73, Sector: 31-A, Chandigarh-160031.
... .Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. A.L. Nanda for R-1 and 2
Mr. R.K. Sharma for R-3
3- O.A. No. 1311/2017, 35/18, 1313/17,1033/18
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. By way of the above captioned 04 Original Applications filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have sought relief of pay protection and counting of their previous service rendered in the KVS as qualified for pensionary benefits pursuant to their appointment to the UT Administration, along with all consequential benefits and interest @ 18% p.a. The relief claimed, the facts, the grounds and the legal issues contained in the aforesaid OAs are common, therefore, these Original Applications are being disposed of by a common order with the consent of learned counsels for both sides. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Original Application No. 311/2017 titled Dheerja Sharma Vs. Chandigarh Administration and Others.
2. The summarized facts of the case (as taken from OA No. 311/2017) are that the applicant joined the Kendriya Vidayalaya Sangathan ("KVS") on 04.03.1994 as T.G.T. (Social Studies).Pursuant to newspaper advertisement issued by Education Department, Chandigarh Administration on 06.03.2000 (A-2), applicant being eligible applied through proper channel which was forwarded by KVS vide letter dated 10.03.2000 (A-3). She was appointed as Mistress (TGT), Social Studies in the pay scale of Rs. 5480-8925 against a vacant post in Govt. Model Senior Secondary School, Sector-10, Chandigarh with immediate effect vide Appointment Order dated 25.01.2002/29.01.2002 (Annexure A-4). She was relieved off her duties from KVS w.e.f. 08.02.2002 on account of her resignation as Technical formalities as per her request dated 31.01.2002/05.02.2002. After resignation and relieving from KVS, the 4- O.A. No. 1311/2017, 35/18, 1313/17,1033/18 applicant joined the services at Govt. Model Senior Secondary School, Sector-10, Chandigarh on 08.02.2002 (Annexure A-6). As per the Last Pay Certificate issued on 08.02.2002 by KVS (A-6), the applicant was drawing the pay of Rs. 6550/- in the pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000/-. Upon joining the Chandigarh Administration, the pay of applicant was fixed @ 5480 in the pay scale of Rs.5480-8925/-. The applicant made representation dated 19.04.2002 for counting of past service rendered in KVS as qualifying service and protection of pay drawn in KVS, followed by a reminder dated 26.08.2004 (Annexure A-8 colly). The respondent no. 2 wrote to KVS on 13.03.2013 and requested for depositing the capitalized value of the share of pension of applicant for the period for which she served in the KVS (Annexure A-16) and in response thereto, the KVS vide letter dated 20/31.03.2014 (Annexure A-17) wrote to the Respondent No. 2 for informing the name of the authority in whose favour the cheque/demand draft has to be remitted. The KVS vide letter dated 22.04.2015 (Annexure A-19) informed that the service rendered by the applicant in KVS is covered under the pensionary benefits scheme 1972 and she was entitled to pensionary benefits and that she had been contributing to GPF Scheme. The applicant has mentioned that in similar case of one Mrs. Yogeeta Khanna, who joined the Chandigarh Administration after resigning from KVS, the benefit of protection of pay at the stage of Rs.6200/- and for pensionary benefit has been granted vide order dated 14.11.2011 (Annexure A-23).
3. The contention of the applicant is that the action of the respondents in not counting the past service of applicant rendered in KVS as qualifying service for the purpose of penionary benefits and in 5- O.A. No. 1311/2017, 35/18, 1313/17,1033/18 not protecting her pay which she was getting in KVS, is in contravention of Rule 3.44 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II and O.M. dated 29.08.1984 issued by the Government of India. She further contended that the action of the respondents is discriminatory as one similarly placed person has been given the benefit of pay protection which she was drawing in KVS before joining the Chandigarh Administration but the applicant has been discriminated against by the respondents. Her further contention is that the action of the respondents is illegal in view of law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of R.L. Marwah Vs. Union of India and Others (1987) 4 SCC 31 and by the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of J.K. Sharma and Another Vs. The State of Punjab and Others (CWP No. 7520/2008 decided on 13.10.2009).
4. The respondents no. 1 and 2 have filed short reply contesting the claim of the applicant. It has been stated therein that the applicant has been appointed as a TGT Mistress (Social Studies) by way of direct appointment under the Chandigarh Administration on 17.04.2004 and joined the same on 21.04.2004 and the appointment letter nowhere stipulates that her old pay will be protected or the previous service will be counted towards pensionary benefits under the Chandigarh Administration. It was a case of fresh appointment and the advertisement for the posts also did not lay down extension of any such benefits. The applicant with open eyes accepted the terms and conditions of her appointment and joined after submitting resignation with the previous employer i.e. Kendriy Vidayalaya Sangathan which is an autonomous body under the Central Government. Her representation made in the year 2017 i.e after more than 13 years of her joining is hit 6- O.A. No. 1311/2017, 35/18, 1313/17,1033/18 by Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and is time barred, Moreover, the applicant cannot turn around against the terms and conditions of her appointment at this stage.
5. It has been further submitted that the service conditions of U.T employees are the same as those of the Punjab Government employees as per notification of Govt. of India dated 13.1.1992. The main plea of the applicant is for protection of pay at Rs.6900/- which she was getting in the Kendriya Vidayalaya Sangathan in the pay-scale of 5500-9000 before joining the Chandigarh Administration in the initial pay scale of Rs.5480-8925 and also to count her previous service for the period from 8.11.1995 to 20.4.2004 for the purpose of pensionary benefits is ill founded and does not merit any consideration on the following grounds:-
i) That the U.T employees are governed by Punjab rules. In the State of Punjab, service of other states/U.Ts/Central Govt. is not counted for fixation of pay or for pensionary benefits. Moreover the pay-scale of both the posts was also different.
ii) That the word "Government" mentioned in the rule 3.17, 3.44 ог any other rule of Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol.l or Vol.II, refers to the Punjab Government and not any other State Government or U.T. Similarly in the case of Chandigarh Administration, Government means the Chandigarh Administration. This has been so held in a number of decisions given by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. As such, service of other State or Central Government is not to be counted for fixation of pay or pension in view of judgments of the Hon‟ble High Court in the cases of i) Kamarjt Kaur Vs State of 7- O.A. No. 1311/2017, 35/18, 1313/17,1033/18 Punjab CWP NO.9688 of 2005 decided on 1.4.1.2016 ii) Jagtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab CWP No 9064 of 2010 decided on 3.5.2013 iii) Karamjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab CWP No. 1450 of 2013 decided on 6.10.2014 iv) Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab CWP No.3889 of 2006 decided on 18.12.2007
iii) That the case of Smt. Yogeeta Khanna, Social Studies Mistress, whose pay was protected by the department is being reviewed and the matter has also been sent to the department of Personnel, Chandigarh Administration for seeking clarification in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court.
iv) As for the judgment attached by the applicant at Annexure A/23 is concerned, it relates to counting of past service of a Punjab Government employee with the same State Autonomous body i.e Punjab State Electricity Board and is thus not applicable in the present case where the applicant was working in a different organization and not funded by the U.T Chandigarh Administration. As such, this judgment has no applicability on the facts of the present case.
v) That as in the State of Punjab so in U.T w.e.f.1.1.2004, employees appointed afresh are not entitled to pension and therefore the question of considering the previous service rendered under the Kendriya Vidayalaya Sangathan for purpose of pension in U.T Chandigarh does not arise. No pension is admissible to employees appointed after 31.12.2003.
6. The applicant has filed rejoinder while reiterating her contentions raised in the O.A. She has highlighted case of Ms. Neetu Kalsi, S.S. Mistress, whose pay has been protected at the stage of Rs.17800/-
8- O.A. No. 1311/2017, 35/18, 1313/17,1033/18 which she was getting while working in the previous institution of Government of Punjab before joining the Chandigarh Administration (Annexure A-27). She has also placed on record O.Ms dated 26.07.2005, 28.10.2009 and 16.12.2009 (Annexures A-28 colly) in support of her averments.
7. We have gone through the pleadings, perused the material available on record and considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for both sides.
8. The issue herein for consideration is whether the pensionable service rendered in KVS is qualified for pay protection and pensionary benefits after appointment on the same post in the Chandigarh Administration.
9. The undisputed facts are that the applicant was initially appointed as TGT (Social Studies) in KVS on 04.03.1994 in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/-. In response to an advertisement notice issued by the Education Department, Chandigarh Administration dated 06.03.2000, the applicant applied for the post of Mistress (Social Studies) through proper channel, without any break in service. Pursuant to her appointment as Mistress (TGT) Social Studies in the pay scale of Rs.5480-160-5800-200-7000-220-8925 vide letter dated 29.01.2002, the applicant submitted her technical resignation and was relived from KVS vide letter dated 07.02.2002. As per the last pay certificate dated 08.02.2002 issued by the KVS, the applicant was drawing substantive pay @ Rs.6500/-. However, the pay of the applicant after appointment in Chandigarh Administration as Mistress (social Studies) was fixed @ Rs. 5480/- at the minimum of the pay scale Rs.5480-8925/-.
9- O.A. No. 1311/2017, 35/18, 1313/17,1033/18
10. The first claim of the applicant is for protection of her pay at the level she was receiving in her previous department i.e. KVS before joining the Chandigarh Administration on the ground that one similarly situated person namely Yogeeta Khanna, Social Studies Mistress, has been granted the benefit of pay protection @ Rs.6200/- as on 03.05.2002 which she was drawing while working in KVS. In support of her averment, the applicant has placed on record the order dated 04.11.2011 (Annexure A-23). From the perusal of the said letter, it is seen that the case of Yogeeta Khanna also belongs to the same period. As is seen from the order dated 14.11.2011 that she must have been relieved from KVS in May, 2002 for joining in the Chandigarh Administration and she has been given the benefit of pay protection in the year 2011. The applicant has constantly been raising her grievance for pay protection since her appointment in Chandigarh Administration in January, 2002. However, she has been discriminated against by the respondents no. 1 and 2 by not granting her the similar benefit as they have extended to Ms. Yogeeta Khanna. The only explanation given by respondents no. 1 and 2, in their short reply on 07.03.2018, is that the case of Yogeeta Khanna is being reviewed and the matter has been sent to DOP&T, Chandigarh Administration for clarification in view of law laid down by the Hon‟ble High Court. No further documents to show as what clarification has been issued by the DoP&T, has been placed on record thereafter by the respondents no. 1 and 2. Moreover, this plea cannot justify the discrimination action of respondents no. 1 and 2 of giving the benefit of pay protection by adopting pick and choose policy amongst the similarly situated employees.
10- O.A. No. 1311/2017, 35/18, 1313/17,1033/18
11. The second claim of the applicant is for counting of service rendered by her in previous organization i.e. KVS for pensionary benefits. The undisputed facts are that the KVS is an autonomous organization fully financed (100%) from the consolidated fund of Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, New Delhi and pensionable to all the KVS employees as in KVS the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 are applicable to the KVS employees. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that Punjab Civil Service Rules, 1970 are applicable to the employees of Chandigarh Administration as per the notification dated 13.01.1992 issued by the Government of India. Learned counsel for the applicant has stressed upon Rules 3.44 and 3.17 A of Punjab Civil Service Rules (in short PCS Rules) Volume-II and Rule 7.5 (2) of PCS Rules Volume I. For the sake of convenience, the same are reproduced as under:-
"Rule 3.17-A (1)Subject to the provisions of rule 4.23 and other rules and except in the cases mentioned below, all service rendered on establishment, interrupted or continuous, shall count as qualifying service:-
i) Service rendered in work-charged establishment.
(ii) Service paid from contingencies:
Provided that after the 1" January, 1973 half of 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:-
(a) Service paid from contingencies should have been in a job involving whole time employment (and not part-time or for a portion of the day).
11- O.A. No. 1311/2017, 35/18, 1313/17,1033/18
(b) Service paid from contingencies should have been in a type of work or job for which regular post 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 staff in regular establishment.
"Rule 3.44 When a pension is payable partly by Government and partly by a Local Fund, the Local Fund concerned may pay the capitalized value (calculated on the basis of the Table of Commutation values for pensions applicable to the pensioners, increased by 10 per cent) of its share of the pension to Government which will thereupon accept liability for the payment of the entire pension."
"Forfeiture of Service on Resignation Rule 7.5 (1) Xxxxxx (2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies for pension."
12- O.A. No. 1311/2017, 35/18, 1313/17,1033/18 From the bare reading of rule 3.17 A PCS Rules, there is not an iota of doubt that service of an employee prior to resignation, which has been rendered with a view to take appointment in another pensionable service under the Government, shall be qualified for pension. Further, the Rule 7.5 of PCS Rules prescribes the effect of resignation on the status of past service rendered by an employee. The sub rule 2 categorically stipulates that a resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up another appointment under the Government, where service qualifies for pension. The applicant herein has applied to the post of Mistress (Social Studies) in UT Administration through proper channel, having qualified the examination and joined after tendering technical resignation, which was accepted by the Competent Authority. The nature and duties of both the posts are same and both are pensionable posts.
12. From the perusal of material available on file, we noticed that the respondent no. 2, while sending reference dated 07.08,2015 (Annexure A-20) to the A.G. (Audit) Chandigarh, has admitted the claim of the applicant on the strength of Rule 3.12 of Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol- I, Part-I. The claim of the applicant for counting of previous service in KVS for the purpose of pensionary benefits has not been objected by the first employer i.e. KVS Chandigarh. Further, in response to the reference made by respondent no. 2, the Principal Accountant General, UT Chandigarh advised the respondent no. 2 to deal with the issue as per the terms and conditions as envisaged. The Principal Accountant General neither rejected nor opposed the claim of the applicant for counting of past service for pensionary benefits. Even the previous employer of the applicant i.e. KVS has never objected the claim of the 13- O.A. No. 1311/2017, 35/18, 1313/17,1033/18 applicant and rather requested the respondents no. 1 and 2 to provide information/documents and name of authority in whose favour the pro- rata pension liability in respect of applicant to be remitted.
13. The Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of J.K. Sharma (supra) while allowing the petition seeking benefit of past service rendered in Punjab State Electricity Board as qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits, has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of R.L. Marwah (supra), (1987) 4 SCC 31 wherein it has been observed as under:-
"8. There is no dispute that the ICAR though it is a body registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960, is a body which is sponsored, financed and controlled by the Central Government. There has been a continuous mobility of personnel between Central Government departments and autonomous bodies, like the ICAR both ways and the government thought, and rightly so, that it would not be just to deprive an employee who is later on absorbed in the service of the autonomous body, like the ICAR the benefit of the service rendered by him earlier in the Central Government for purposes of computation of pension and similarly the benefit of service rendered by an employee who is later on absorbed in the Central Government service the benefit of the service rendered by him earlier in the autonomous body for purposes of computation of pension. If that was the object of issuing the notification then the benefit of such notification should be extended to all pensioners who had rendered service earlier in the Central Government or in the 14- O.A. No. 1311/2017, 35/18, 1313/17,1033/18 autonomous body as the case may be with effect from the date of the said government order"
14. The learned counsel for the respondents has also objected to the claim of the applicant on the ground that there is delay of more than 13 years in raising grievance, therefore, the O.A. is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The said plea of the respondent is wrong and misconceived as the applicant immediately after joining the U.T. Administration on 08.02.2002, made representation on 19.04.2002, through proper channel, seeking benefit of counting of past service for the purpose of fixation of pay and pay protection which the respondent no. 2 forwarded to respondent no. 1. There is nothing on record, which could indicate that the claim of the applicant has been rejected by the respondents.
15. Moreover, we find that the Government of Punjab has issued instructions dated 14.05.1986 on the subject which reads as under:-
"Subject:-Counting of service for the purpose pension of the employee of the State Government and State Autonomous Bodies seeking absorption in Central Autonomous Bodies and Central Govt./Central Autonomous Bodies respectively and vice versa.
I am directed to refer to the subject cited above and to state that Government of Punjab has been considering in consultation with the Government of India, the question of counting of service rendered by the State Government Employee under the State Govt. before their absorption in Central Autonomous Bodies and service rendered by the employees of the State Autonomous bodies under State Autonomous before 15- O.A. No. 1311/2017, 35/18, 1313/17,1033/18 their absorption in the Central Government /Central Autonomous Bodies for pensionery benefits and vice-versa. The matter has been considered carefully and the Governor of Punjab is pleased to decide that the case of State Govt. employee going over to the Central Autonomous bodies and that of employee of the State Autonomous bodies moving to Central Govt/Central autonomous bodies or vice versa may be regulated as follows:
(a) In case Post/serving is pensionable in the new organisation (1) Where an employee born on pensionable establishment is allowed to be absorbed in such an organization, the service rendered by him/her shall be allowed to be counted towards pension under the new organization irrespective of the fact whether the employee was temporary or permanent in the old organization. The pensionery benefits will however accrue only if the temporary service is followed by confirmation. If he/she retires as a temporary employee in the new organization he/she will get terminal benefits as are normally available to temporary employees.
The Government/Autonomous bodies will discharge their pension liability by paying in lump sum as a one time payment the prorate. Pension/ service gratuity and death cum retirement gratuity for the service up to the date of absorption in autonomous bodies/ Government as the case may be. Prorata pension will be determined with reference 16- O.A. No. 1311/2017, 35/18, 1313/17,1033/18 to the commutation table in chapter XI of the Punjab civil Services Rules Volume II as amended from time to time."
16. The judgements relied upon by the respondents are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because none of the case deals the situation of counting of service rendered by the applicant in KVS, a Central Autonomous Body with service under Chandigarh Administration. In the case of Kamarjit Kaur (supra), the prayer was to club service spent in JNV Samiti with service under Punjab Government (Smiti) and not of clubbing service rendered in Central Autonomous Body with service under Chandigarh Administration. Moreover, the petitioner therein was not given benefit because she had not disclosed the information as to whether or not she had received the terminal benefits like death-cum retirement gratuity, leave encashment, amounts lying in Contributory Provident Fund due from her previous employer nor has she impleaded the said authorities in the array of parties for them to confirm or answer the petition on merits. The petitioner therein had also failed to mention any policy/instructions according to which her claim for pay protection can be covered, which is not the position in the present case as the Chandigarh Administration Finance Department vide No. 65/1/42/FII(12)/2009/1633 dated 03.03.2010 has directed all Administrative Secretaries and Head of Departments in Chandigarh Administration to regulate further course of action in relation the cases regarding counting of past service in Central Government/State Government in the light of the advice of the Government of India letter dated 16.12.2009.
17. In the case of Jagtar Singh (supra), the prayer was to club service spent in CRPF with service under Punjab Armed Police (PAP) and 17- O.A. No. 1311/2017, 35/18, 1313/17,1033/18 not of clubbing service rendered in Central Autonomous Body with service under Chandigarh Administration. In the case of Karamjit Singh (supra), the prayer was to club service spent in U.T. Chandigarh Administration with service under Punjab Government and not of clubbing service rendered in Central Autonomous Body with service under Chandigarh Administration. In the case of Jarnail Singh (supra), the prayer was to club service spent in U.T. Chandigarh Administration with service under Punjab Government and not of clubbing service rendered in Central Autonomous Body with service under Chandigarh Administration. Thus, the judgments relied upon by the respondents cannot be made applicable in the present case being distinguishable on facts.
18. In view of the discussion hereinabove, the Original Applications succeed. The applicants are held entitled for pay protection in the new organization and counting of their previous service rendered in the KVS as qualified for pensionary benefits. The needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
„mw‟