Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. During the intervening period, the Government of India introduced a New Pension Scheme (NPS) for its new employees. NPS was mandatory for the Central Government employees who had joined on or after 01.01.2004. The employees of PGIMER were also covered under the NPS. Earlier, the employees were covered under the OPS. The PGIMER relying upon the letter No. V-17020/4/2007-ME-II, dated 28.06.2007 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (for short 'Ministry') 2 of 17 clarifying the applicability of NPS held that the respondents would be covered under the NPS. The relevant portion of the aforesaid letter is reproduced as under:-

"the faculty who were working on regular basis on the lower posts and selected as Direct Recruits in the Grade of Professor, are governed by the earlier pension rules and those who are appointed on regular basis to any post as Direct Recruits on or after 01.01.2004, would be covered by the New Pension Scheme even though they may have been working on adhoc basis in any post in the Institute."

5. Thereafter, the respondents made a representation for grant of benefits of the OPS. The matter was put before the Governing Body. The Governing Body in its meeting held in January, 2011 constituted a Sub- Committee to look into the grievance of respondents. The said committee recommended the case of respondents vide letter dated 14.09.2011. The matter was placed before the Governing Body in its meeting held on 28.04.2012. The Governing Body recommended that the respondents should be covered under the OPS. The decision was subject to the approval of Government of India. The matter was referred to Government of India i.e. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. The same was rejected by the Ministry vide its letter dated 05.11.2013. It was decided that since the respondents were not appointed on regular basis as on 31.12.2003, hence, they would be covered under the NPS. The said decision was conveyed to the respondents. The respondents again submitted a representation for being considered under the OPS. The representation was again rejected vide letter dated 12.08.2014.

3 of 17

6. Aggrieved of the rejection, the respondents filed OA bearing No. 060/00848/2017. The Tribunal vide order dated 31.07.2017, directed the Ministry to consider and decide the representations, by passing a speaking order. In pursuance of the order dated 31.07.2017 passed by the Tribunal, the Ministry decided the representation and rejected the same vide letter dated 12.10.2017 and it was held that NPS would be applicable to the respondents.

9. On merits, it was argued that the respondents were appointed on regular basis only after 01.04.2004 and were governed by NPS. The grievance is that the Tribunal had wrongly framed the issue involved in the case.

10. The counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the 4 of 17 conditions of appointment letter, stating that the initial appointment was purely on ad-hoc basis. It was clearly mentioned that it shall not bestow on the person a right to claim regular appointment and the ad-hoc service would not be counted for the purpose of seniority or for eligibility for promotion. The contention raised was that it is not a case where the respondents were regularized instead they were given fresh appointments after 01.04.2004.