Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Kewal Singh vs Cpwd on 19 February, 2026
1- O.A. No. 296/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Original Application No.060/296/2021
Pronounced on: 19.02.2026
Reserved on: 30.01.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
Kewal Singh s/o Sh. Jaswant Singh, aged 56 years, working as Motor
Lorry Driver (Regular) in the office of Executive Engineer (Civil), Central
Public Works Department, 17-B, BRS Nagar, Ludhiana. (Group-C)
... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. H.S. Saini for Mr. Rsihav Sharma
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, M/o Urban Development, Govt. of
India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.
2. Directorate General of Works, Central Public Works Department (CPWD),
Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi-110011.
3. Executive Engineer (Civil), Central Public Works Department, 17-B, BRS
Digitally signed Nagar, Ludhiana-141001.
by MAMTA
WADHWA
... .Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC
2- O.A. No. 296/2021
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) The Annexure A-1 dated 28.01.2020 be quashed and set aside; that it be declared that the applicant is entitled to switch over to Old Pension Scheme/GPF as in the case of Baldev Singh and others;
(ii) The respondents be directed to switch over the applicant to the provisions of Old Pension Scheme (CCS Pension Rules, 1972) and GPF Rules by extending him the benefit of the judgments rendered by this Tribunal in the cases of Satish Kumar and Baldev Singh; that it be declared that the applicant is entitled to all the benefits under the Old Pension Scheme i.e. CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972;
(iii) The action of the respondents in applying the New Pension Scheme be declared illegal, arbitrary and against law;
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant was initially appointed as Motor Lorry Driver on muster roll/work-charge basis on 01.07.1988 with the respondents and his services were later regularized vide order dated 14.08.2008, which was subsequently amended through letters dated 26.07.2013 and 12.08.2013, regularizing his services with effect from 11.12.2006. After regularization, deductions under the Contributory Pension Fund/New Pension Scheme were started in terms of DoPT O.M. dated 26.04.2004. The applicant contends that since his initial appointment was in the year 1988, therefore, he ought to have Digitally signed been governed by CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and entitled to subscribe by MAMTA WADHWA to GPF under the Old Pension Scheme, but he was not so switched over.
He further states that similarly situated employees including Sh. Baldev Singh and others and Sh. Satish Kumar and others had approached this Tribunal through OAs 1047/2014 and 1048/2014 respectively, which 3- O.A. No. 296/2021 were allowed vide orders dated 26.05.2015 and 02.07.2015 respectively (Annexures A-7 and A-8), directing coverage under the Old Pension Scheme by counting service from initial appointment, and that such orders were implemented by the respondents only after contempt proceedings, vide order dated 07.10.2016 (Annexure A-9). The applicant submitted representations dated 27.10.2017, 30.11.2017 and 17.03.2018 (Annexure A-2 colly) seeking similar treatment, but no relief was granted. Consequently, he filed OA No. 958 of 2018 which was disposed of in limine vide order dated 14.08.2018 (Annexue A-10), after which the respondents passed the impugned order dated 28.01.2020 (Annexure A-1) rejecting his claim on the ground that he had not been granted temporary status and hence, as per DoPT instructions dated 26.02.2016 and 28.07.2016, could not be switched to the Old Pension Scheme. The applicant asserts that employees similarly placed, including drivers, who had not been granted temporary status, were nonetheless granted the benefit pursuant to judicial orders, and therefore denial of the same benefit to him amounts to discrimination.
3. The applicant contends that once he was appointed against a sanctioned post in 1988 and later regularized with effect from 11.12.2006, the New Pension Scheme introduced in 2004 cannot be applied retrospectively to his case. He asserts that his initial engagement and long service cannot be ignored merely because Digitally signed regularization occurred later, and that regularization does not amount to by MAMTA WADHWA fresh appointment. It is further pleaded that his case is squarely covered by the decisions of this Tribunal granting Old Pension Scheme benefits to similarly placed employees and that the respondents are bound to extend the same benefit without compelling each employee to 4- O.A. No. 296/2021 litigate separately. The applicant also submits that the stand taken in the impugned order regarding non-grant of temporary status under the 1993 Scheme is contrary to earlier decisions implemented by the respondents in cases involving similarly situated drivers. Reliance is placed upon Baldev Singh & Ors. v. Union of India, Satish Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India, Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, and Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana in support of the claim that employees appointed prior to introduction of the New Pension Scheme and subsequently regularized are entitled to coverage under the Old Pension Scheme and that equal treatment must be extended to all similarly situated employees.
4. The respondents have opposed the Original Application and submitted that the same is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of limitation as well as on merits. It is stated that the applicant's services were regularized initially with effect from 14.08.2008 and subsequently ante-dated to 11.12.2006, and that the terms of regularization clearly provided that regularization would take effect from the date of joining as a regular employee and that pension under the old scheme would not be admissible. According to the respondents, since the New Contributory Pension Scheme came into force with effect from 01.01.2004 and applies to all persons joining service on or after that date, the applicant, having been regularized after 01.01.2004, is rightly covered under the Digitally signed New Pension Scheme and is estopped from claiming coverage under the by MAMTA WADHWA Old Pension Scheme, having accepted the terms of regularization without challenge. It is further pleaded that deductions towards CPF were rightly made in accordance with DoPT instructions dated 26.04.2004.
5- O.A. No. 296/2021
5. The respondents contend that the judgments relied upon by the applicant in the cases of Baldev Singh & Ors. v. Union of India, Satish Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India, Jagmohinder Singh & Ors. v. Union of India, Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, Rameshwar Singh v. Union of India, and Birendra Singh & Anr. v. Union of India are not applicable to the present case on account of different factual circumstances and different statutory frameworks. It is specifically submitted that the judgments based on Punjab Civil Service Rules cannot govern the case of a Central Government employee governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which do not permit counting of casual, daily-wage or work-charged service for pension. The respondents further state that in cases like Rameshwar Singh and Birendra Singh, the concerned employees had been granted temporary status under the 1993 Scheme and GPF deductions were being made, whereas the present applicant was never granted temporary status, the earlier grant having been withdrawn as inadmissible since he was a Group-C employee. It is also pointed out that the orders in Baldev Singh were implemented only in compliance with Tribunal directions and have been challenged before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court as being contrary to Government policy. The respondents also submit that the decision in Satish Kumar is distinguishable as it related to a Group-D post, whereas the applicant holds a Group-C post of Motor Lorry Driver. Digitally signed 6. The respondents further rely upon the DoPT Scheme dated by MAMTA WADHWA 10.09.1993 regarding temporary status to casual labourers and submit that the applicant did not fulfill the requirements for benefits flowing therefrom. It is asserted that the Department, after consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs, has taken a policy decision not to allow 6- O.A. No. 296/2021 such claims in similar cases. On these grounds, the respondents pray that the OA be dismissed with costs as the applicant is not entitled to switching over to the Old Pension Scheme or any consequential relief.
7. We have gone through the pleadings, perused the material available on record and considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
8. The undisputed facts that emerged from the pleadings are that the applicant, Kewal Singh, was initially engaged as Motor Lorry Driver on muster roll/work-charge basis on 01.07.1988 under the Central Public Works Department and his services were subsequently regularized, initially with effect from 14.08.2008 and later ante-dated to 11.12.2006. It is not in dispute that after regularization, deductions towards the New Contributory Pension Scheme/CPF were made from the salary of the applicant in terms of Government instructions issued after 01.01.2004. It is also admitted that similarly placed employees had earlier approached this Tribunal seeking coverage under the Old Pension Scheme and that decisions were rendered in their favour, which were implemented by the respondents pursuant to judicial directions. The applicant submitted representations seeking parity with such employees, which were rejected by the respondents through the impugned order dated 28.01.2020. It is further undisputed that the respondents' primary defence is based on the applicability of the New Pension Scheme due to Digitally signed by MAMTA the date of regularization and on the plea that the applicant was not WADHWA granted temporary status under the 1993 Scheme. The factual matrix regarding the nature of engagement of the applicant as Motor Lorry Driver, his eventual regularization, and his claim for coverage under the 7- O.A. No. 296/2021 Old Pension Scheme thus remains substantially undisputed between the parties.
9. The principal question that arises for consideration is whether the applicant, who was initially engaged prior to 01.01.2004 and later regularized, is entitled to be covered under the Old Pension Scheme/GPF in terms of earlier judicial pronouncements rendered in respect of similarly situated employees, and whether the respondents are justified in denying such benefit on the ground of non-grant of temporary status and the date of regularization.
10. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the pleadings and material placed on record, this Tribunal finds that the controversy involved in the present case is no longer res integra. The issue regarding entitlement of similarly situated employees working as Motor Lorry Driver under the respondent department to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme has already been examined and decided by this Tribunal in the case of Tarsem Singh Vs. Union of India and Others (OA No. 060/1159/2021 decided on 01.12.2025). The applicant's case stands on the same factual foundation as the applicant in the aforementioned case was initially engaged prior to the introduction of the New Pension Scheme and subsequently regularized, was granted the benefit of coverage under the Old Pension Scheme.
11. Once similarly situated employees have been granted the benefit Digitally signed by MAMTA WADHWA pursuant to judicial orders, denial of the same treatment to the applicant would amount to discrimination and unequal treatment, which cannot be sustained in law. The plea that the applicant did not possess temporary status under the 1993 Scheme does not materially alter the 8- O.A. No. 296/2021 substance of the claim, especially when employees similarly placed in the same department have been granted identical relief.
12. In view of the above, this Tribunal holds that the facts of the present case are squarely and wholly covered by this Tribunal's decision in Tarsem Singh's case (supra), which was rendered following various judgments of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court on the issue. The operative part of the decision in Tarsem Singh's case is extracted hereunder for ready reference: -
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 Digitally signed by MAMTA benefit to the present applicant. Such decision of denial is WADHWA 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. 9- O.A. No. 296/2021 14669/2015, decided on 20.12.2018, wherein it was held that an employee who had entered 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 Digitally signed applicant would be governed by the New Pension Scheme, cannot by MAMTA WADHWA 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 10- O.A. No. 296/2021 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.
13. Accordingly, the action of the respondents in denying the applicant the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme, despite extending the same to similarly situated employees, cannot be sustained. 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 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 in favour of the applicant. No costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Digitally signed
by MAMTA Dated: 19.02.2026
WADHWA
'mw'