Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Madan Lal vs Accountant General (A And E) Himachal ... on 27 March, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A No. 710/2022
Chandigarh, this the 27th day of March, 2026
HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
Madan Lal s/o Sh. Shinoo Ram, aged 48 years, working as Driver
Grade- in the office of Principal Accountant General (Audit), H.P.,
Shimla, -171001.
...Applicant
(BY ADVOCATE: Sh. K.B. Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Pocket No. 9, Deen Dayal
Upadhyay Marg, New Delhi. 110001
2. Principal Accountant General (Audit), Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, -
(H.P.)-171001.
...Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC)
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J):
1. The applicant has filed instant O.A under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking following relief:
(I) That a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for covering him to the provisions of Old Pension Scheme (CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972) & GPF Rules, in the interest of justice.
(II) That it be declared that the applicant is entitled all the benefits under Old Pension Scheme i.e. CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
MANDEEP SINGH MANDEEP SINGH 2 (III) That the action of the respondents in applying the New Pension Scheme be declared illegal and arbitrary and against the law.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the name of the applicant was sponsored through Employment Exchange for the post of Driver in the respondents department on Daily wage basis and after going through the Interview, Driving test etc, he was selected as Driver by the respondents on daily wage basis against sanctioned post. The applicant joined his service with the respondent no. 2 in September, 1998 as Driver on daily wage basis. The daily wage service of the applicant was followed by the regularization of his service and substantive appointment as Staff Car Diver, vide order dated 15.02.2007. Now the applicant has been working as Driver Grade-l. After regularization of services of the applicant, the respondents started deducting CPF from his salary under the New Pension Scheme in terms of Government of India DOPT letter No.49014/1/2004- Estt(C) dated 26.4.2004. They applied new Pension Scheme in the case of the applicant. It has been pleaded that since, the applicant was engaged in the year 1998 as a Casual Labourer, and at that time Old pension Scheme i.e. CCS (P) Rules 1972 was in existence, therefore, the applicant was required to be governed under CCS (Pension), Rules 1972 and he was entitled to subscribe to GPF under Old Pension Scheme. The new Pension Scheme which was introduced in the year 2004 cannot be applied retrospectively, in the case of the applicant. His service of more than 09 years prior to his regularization of his services cannot be wiped out.
3. It is submitted that the issue whether an employee joined prior to 2004 as Casual Labourer and regularized after 1.1.2004 is entitled to benefit under Old Pension Scheme or New Pension Scheme came was subject MANDEEP SINGH MANDEEP SINGH 3 matter of adjudication before Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal. He has relied upon the order dated 19.12.2019 of Co-ordinate Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in the case of P VENKATESH v. INSTITUTE OF AEROSPACE MEDICINE, IAF, O.A. No. 554/2019 and order dated 19.12.2019 of Bangalore Bench Ravi S M vs UOI and Ors, O.A. No. 558/2019 which was allowed in favour of applicant therein. He has also placed reliance in the case of Jagmohinder Singh & Ors Vs. UOI & Ors, O.A. No. 585/CH/2012 decided on 18.4.2013, wherein the employee who were appointed on daily wages basis and their services were regularized after 1.1.2004, were granted benefits under the New Pension scheme. This Tribunal negated the contention of the respondents therein and directed the department not to apply the New Pension Scheme in their case as they are not fresh appointees. It has been pleaded that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Jagmohinder Singh (Supra).
4. The applicant pleaded that after various judicial pronouncements, the Government of India issued a O.M. dated 28.07.2016/26.02.2016, wherein it was decided to switch over those employees to the GPF and Old Pension Scheme, who were granted temporary status under 1993 Scheme but their services were regularized after 1.1.2004. The case of the applicant for switching over him to old pension Scheme is squarely covered O.M dated 28.7.2016/26.02.2016. The applicant based upon the judicial pronouncements submitted a representation dated 05.5.2022 and requested for switching over to the Old Pension Scheme, but the same has remained without any response till date.
5. The respondents have filed written statement contesting the claim of the applicant and stated that the applicant was initially engaged on daily MANDEEP SINGH MANDEEP SINGH 4 wages in the year 1998 in the respondent office but during the year 2007 he was appointed through direct recruitment as a Staff Car Driver. The vacancy of this post was given wide publicity by advertising it in national newspapers and Employment News. Moreover, the applicant has not produced any evidence in support of his regularization as Staff Car Driver thereby proving himself against the set principle of law 'Actori Incumbit onus probandi'. The respondent deducted CPF from his salary because the applicant had been appointed through direct recruitment to the post of Staff Car Driver on 14.02.2007, therefore, the extant rules notified by Government of lndia vide letter dated 26.04.2004 (Annexure R-2) were applicable on him and thus, CPF had been deducted from his salary.
6. The applicant has filed rejoinder and has placed reliance on the order dated 08.08.2025 passed by this Tribunal in O.A No. 705/2022 and 8 connected O.As
7. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the applicability of dictum of order dated 08.08.2025 passed by this Tribunal andurged that the decision dated 08.08.2025 is under challenge before the Hon'ble High Court at Shimla.
8. Upon consideration of the material placed on record, the rival contentions of the parties, and the judicial pronouncements relied upon, we find merit in the claim of the applicant. It is undisputed that the applicant had entered into service on 02.09.1998 as a daily waged Driver against a sanctioned post and continued to serve uninterruptedly till 14.02.2007. The crucial fact is that the applicant had rendered 8 years of continuous service. Denying the benefit of Old Pension Scheme solely on the ground that the applicant was appointed through direct recruitment is not justified.
MANDEEP SINGH MANDEEP SINGH 5
10. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, CWP No. 2371 of 2010 decided on 31.08.2010 (Annexure A-4), and the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in P. Venkatesh v. Institute of Aerospace Medicine, IAF, OA No. 554/2019 decided on 19.12.2019 (Annexure A-3), have clearly held that employees, whose initial engagement was prior to 01.01.2004 are to be governed by the Old Pension Scheme even, if they were regularized thereafter. Several similar decisions, including Jagmohinder Singh & Ors. v. UOI, OA No. 585/CH/2012 decided on 18.04.2013 by the Chandigarh Bench, support this settled legal position.
11. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and gone through the material available on record. Since, the issue has already been adjudicated upon by this Tribunal vide decision dated 08.08.2025, we have no reason to take a different view. Therefore, with the adidem between both the sides, the instant O.A is disposed of in terms of the order dated 08.08.2025 passed by this Tribunal subject to the final outcome of CWP preferred before the Hon'ble High Court at Shimla, challenging the order dated 08.08.2025. No costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA)
Member (A) Member (J)
*ms
MANDEEP SINGH MANDEEP SINGH