Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Lakhwinder Kour vs Finance Department on 31 December, 2025
:: 1 :: TA 516/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 516/2022
Reserved on: - 02.09.2025
Pronounced on: - 31.12.2025
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
Lakhwinder Kour, age 34 years,
D/o S. Manjeet Singh
R/o Dayal Building Last Morh,
Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.
...Applicant
(Advocate:- Mr. Devansh Singh Thakur)
Versus
1. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner/Secretary to
Govt.
Finance Department,
Government of J&K,
Civil Secretariat, Jammu.
2. Director General Economics and Statistics, Janipur, Jammu.
HARSHIT Digitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 516/2022
3.Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Jammu.
4.Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department (R&B), Jammu
- Kathua Circle, Jammu.
5.Chairman,
Service Selection Board, Jammu.
....Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Rajesh Thapa, ld. AAG)
HARSHIT Digitally
by HARSHIT
signed
YADAV YADAV
:: 3 :: TA 516/2022
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP No.2800/2017 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No/516/2022 the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
a) The entry incorporated on 01.07.2011 in the service book of the petitioner to the extent it treat the petitioner having been selected through Service Selection Board on non-pensionable basis instead of pensionable basis.
b) The decision taken by the respondents whereby the petitioner has been held to have been appointed on non-pensionable basis, if any.
may kindly be quashed.
c) By issuing further appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of Mandamus, respondents be commanded to treat the petitioner having been selected through the Service HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 4 :: TA 516/2022 Selection Board on pensionable basis instead of non- pensionable basis, as stated in the entry referred to herein- above in the service book of the petitioner
d) By issuing further appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of writ of Prohibition, respondents be commanded not to treat the petitioner as having been selected and appointed to the post of Statistical Assistant on non-pensionable basis.
e) Such other additional or alternative order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also passed in favour of the Petitioner and against the respondents.
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in her pleading are as follows: -
a) The applicant, Smt. Lakhwinder Kour, is a permanent resident of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir and a citizen of India. She asserts that she is entitled to the full protection of her fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution of India, as HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 5 :: TA 516/2022 well as statutory and service rights flowing from the applicable service rules governing her appointment and service conditions.
b) It is pleaded that the Service Selection Board issued Advertisement Notification No. 05 of 2007 dated 31.12.2007, inviting applications for various posts in the State, Divisional and District Cadres. Item No. 82 of Annexure-II to the said notification pertained to the post of Statistical Assistant in the Jammu Division Cadre. The applicant, being fully eligible, applied under the Open Merit category, for which five posts were advertised.
c) Upon completion of the selection process, the applicant was duly selected by the Service Selection Board and her name figured in the select list issued vide communication dated 26.10.2009, which was subsequently endorsed by the Planning and Development Department on 17.12.2009. Consequent thereto, the Directorate of Economics and Statistics issued Appointment Order No. 1022-DES/Camp of 2009 dated 24.12.2009, appointing the applicant as Statistical Assistant in the pay scale of ₹9300-34800 with grade pay of ₹4200/-.
HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 6 :: TA 516/2022
d) According to the applicant, the appointment order dated 24.12.2009 constitutes the decisive and determinative date of appointment. It is specifically pleaded that since the appointment order was issued prior to 01.01.2010, the applicant squarely falls under the Old Pension Scheme, as the New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme introduced vide SRO 400 dated 24.12.2009 applies only to employees appointed on or after 01.01.2010.
e) The applicant asserts that she joined her duties pursuant to the said appointment order and, along with other selectees, was subsequently adjusted in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Jammu. It is her categorical case that the appointment having been made on 24.12.2009, the question of her being treated as a non- pensionable employee does not arise.
f) The grievance of the applicant arises from an entry made in her service book on 01.07.2011, wherein her date of appointment has been recorded as 20.01.2010, and she has been shown as appointed on a Non-Pensionable basis. According to the HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 7 :: TA 516/2022 applicant, this entry is factually incorrect, arbitrary, and legally unsustainable, as it contradicts the appointment order dated 24.12.2009.
g) It is pleaded that the respondents have wrongly equated the date of joining with the date of appointment, whereas under
the Pension Rules and SRO 400, it is the date of appointment which is decisive for determining pensionary entitlement. The impugned service book entry, according to the applicant, has illegally deprived her of the benefit of pension under the Old Pension Scheme.
h) The applicant further contends that neither the advertisement notification nor the appointment order ever indicated that the post of Statistical Assistant was non-pensionable in nature. The subsequent classification of her appointment as non-
pensionable is, therefore, stated to be an afterthought, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and reflective of non-application of mind.
i) On these premises, the applicant seeks quashing of the service book entry dated 01.07.2011 to the extent it records her HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 8 :: TA 516/2022 appointment as non-pensionable, and a direction to the respondents to treat her as having been appointed on pensionable basis with effect from 24.12.2009, along with all consequential benefits.
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows:
a) The respondents, at the outset, submit that the present Transfer Application is wholly misconceived, legally untenable, and devoid of merit. It is asserted that no legal, statutory, or fundamental right of the applicant has been infringed, warranting interference by this Tribunal in exercise of its jurisdiction.
b) It is further contended that the application raises disputed questions of fact, particularly regarding the alleged date of joining, which cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings.
The applicant, according to the respondents, has also failed to establish any enforceable cause of action or locus standi. HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 9 :: TA 516/2022
c) The respondents allege that the applicant has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and has attempted to misrepresent facts by selectively relying upon the appointment order while suppressing material aspects of her actual joining and completion of mandatory pre-appointment formalities.
d) On facts, it is admitted that the Service Selection Board issued Advertisement Notification dated 31.12.2007 and that the applicant was selected and recommended for appointment as Statistical Assistant. It is also not disputed that an appointment order dated 24.12.2009 was issued in her favour.
e) However, it is specifically pleaded that the appointment order itself contained a clear stipulation that the selected candidates were permitted to join only after completion and production of requisite formalities, including affidavit, medical fitness certificate, and no-objection certificates from the concerned departments.
f) The respondents submit that the applicant completed these mandatory formalities only on 31.12.2009, as evidenced by the dates on the affidavit, medical certificate, and NOCs. HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 10 :: TA 516/2022 Consequently, she could not have joined prior to that date. Thereafter, she was formally posted to the office of the Superintending Engineer, PWD (R&B), Jammu, vide Order No. 42-DES/Camp of 2010 dated 19.01.2010, and she actually joined on 20.01.2010 (forenoon).
g) It is categorically stated that the applicant's service records unequivocally establish her date of joining as 20.01.2010. The respondents deny the applicant's claim of having joined on 30.12.2009 and assert that no such joining report exists on record. Had such joining been submitted, the same would have been duly endorsed and reflected in her personal file.
h) The respondents further submit that under Article 249-M(B) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations, all entrants joining government service on or after 01.01.2010 are governed by the New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme. Since the applicant actually joined service on 20.01.2010, her inclusion under the New Pension Scheme is lawful, justified, and in consonance with the statutory rules. HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 11 :: TA 516/2022
i) It is also pointed out that other candidates appointed pursuant to the same selection process, including Ms. Keerti Thakur and Shri Arun Kumar, have been uniformly governed by the New Pension Scheme, and the applicant cannot claim a different treatment in violation of the principle of parity.
j) The respondents thus contend that the service book entry recording the applicant's appointment as non-pensionable is neither arbitrary nor illegal, but is a correct reflection of her service particulars as per record and rules.
k) On these grounds, the respondents pray for dismissal of the Transfer Application, as the applicant has failed to make out any case for interference or grant of relief.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The present Transfer Application has arisen out of SWP No. 2800/2017, which stood transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir to this Tribunal and was registered as TA No. 516/2022. The applicant calls in question the correctness of the service book entry dated 01.07.2011 whereby her date of appointment HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 12 :: TA 516/2022 has been reflected as 20.01.2010 and her appointment has been treated as non-pensionable, thereby bringing her under the New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme.
7. The short but significant controversy involved in the present case is whether the date of issuance of appointment order or the actual date of joining service is determinative for deciding the applicability of the pension scheme introduced w.e.f. 01.01.2010 under SRO 400.
8. The facts which emerge undisputed from the pleadings and record are that:
The applicant was selected pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. 05 of 2007 issued by the Service Selection Board.
An appointment order bearing No. 1022-DES/Camp of 2009 dated 24.12.2009 was issued in her favour. The appointment order itself stipulated that joining was subject to completion and production of mandatory formal documents. The applicant was posted vide Order No. 42-DES/Camp of 2010 dated 19.01.2010 and admittedly joined in the office of HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 13 :: TA 516/2022 the Superintending Engineer, PWD (R&B), Jammu on 20.01.2010.
9. The dispute, therefore, is not factual but interpretative--whether mere issuance of an appointment order prior to 01.01.2010 confers a vested right to be governed by the Old Pension Scheme, irrespective of the actual date of joining.
10. The applicant has contended that since her appointment order was issued on 24.12.2009, she must be treated as having been appointed prior to 01.01.2010, and therefore, the application of the New Pension Scheme is illegal. It is further contended that the date of joining is irrelevant for pensionary entitlement and that the impugned service book entry is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
11. The respondents, per contra, have argued that the applicant entered government service only on 20.01.2010 after completing mandatory pre-appointment formalities. It is asserted that under the statutory scheme governing pension, the decisive factor is the date of entry into service, and not the mere issuance of an appointment order. The respondents have further pointed out that similarly situated candidates HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 14 :: TA 516/2022 selected under the same process have also been governed by the New Pension Scheme.
12. The following issues arise for consideration:
Whether issuance of an appointment order prior to 01.01.2010, by itself, confers entitlement to the Old Pension Scheme? Whether the date of joining service is the relevant date for determining applicability of the pension scheme? Whether the impugned service book entry suffers from arbitrariness or illegality?
13. The pension scheme introduced vide SRO 400 clearly provides that government employees appointed on or after 01.01.2010 shall be governed by the New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme. The expression "appointed" cannot be read in isolation or divorced from service jurisprudence. Appointment to a civil post is not a mere paper exercise; it culminates only when an appointee actually enters service by joining the post after fulfilling all prescribed conditions.
14. An appointment order which is conditional in nature and subject to completion of formalities does not create an indefeasible or vested right in favour of the appointee until such conditions are fulfilled and HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 15 :: TA 516/2022 the employee actually joins service. In the present case, the appointment order itself clearly stipulated production of affidavit, medical fitness certificate, and NOCs as pre-conditions for joining.
15. The record unmistakably shows that the applicant completed these formalities only on 31.12.2009 and was thereafter posted and joined on 20.01.2010. No contemporaneous record has been produced to substantiate the plea of joining prior to 01.01.2010. The assertion of having joined on 30.12.2009 remains bald, unsupported, and contrary to official service records.
16.It is well settled that service benefits flow from the date of actual entry into service and not from the date of issuance of an appointment order, particularly when such order is conditional. Accepting the contention of the applicant would lead to anomalous consequences where an individual who never worked even for a day prior to the cut-off date could still claim benefits meant exclusively for those who were actually in service.
17.The plea that pension is a fundamental right, though attractive at first blush, is legally misconceived. While pension is undoubtedly a valuable statutory right, it is governed by the applicable rules in force HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 16 :: TA 516/2022 at the time of entry into service. No employee can claim a pension scheme contrary to the statutory framework applicable to her appointment.
18.The argument based on Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution also does not advance the case of the applicant. The policy decision to introduce a new pension scheme from a specified cut-off date has a clear nexus with fiscal and administrative considerations and has been consistently upheld by courts. Uniform application of the New Pension Scheme to all employees joining on or after 01.01.2010, including the applicant, negates any allegation of discrimination or arbitrariness.
19.The Tribunal also finds merit in the contention of the respondents that other candidates selected pursuant to the same selection process and who joined service after 01.01.2010 have been governed by the New Pension Scheme. The applicant cannot seek a special or preferential treatment on a selective reading of the rules.
20.The service book entry dated 01.07.2011 merely reflects the factual and legal position as it existed and does not create a new disability for the applicant. It is a consequential entry flowing from her actual date HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV :: 17 :: TA 516/2022 of joining and the governing pension rules. No illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity can be attributed to the said entry.
21.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that:
a) The applicant entered government service only on 20.01.2010.
b) The New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme is rightly applicable to her.
c) The impugned service book entry does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
d) No enforceable legal or constitutional right of the applicant has been violated.
22. The Transfer Application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) Administrative Member Judicial Member /harshit/ HARSHIT Digitally by HARSHIT signed YADAV YADAV