Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing Jagmohinder Kaur And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 February, 2015

Kewal Singh vs Cpwd on 19 February, 2026

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were being made, whereas the present applicant was never granted temporary status, the earlier grant having been withdrawn as inadmissible since he was a Group-C employee.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.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tarsem Singh vs Central Public Works Division on 1 December, 2025

6. The applicant contended that since he had initially been engaged in the year 1993 and had continuously served the department without any break, he could not be treated as a fresh appointee at the time of his regularization in 2006. His past service of more than thirteen years could not be ignored and therefore he was entitled to be governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and to subscribe to the GPF under the Old Pension Scheme rather than being placed under the New Pension Scheme. He relied on several judicial pronouncements in support of his claim. He referred to the decision of this Tribunal in Jagmohinder Singh and others vs. UOI and others, OA No. 585/CH/2012, decided 5- O.A. No. 1159/2021 on 18.04.2013, wherein employees appointed on daily wages and regularized after 01.01.2004 were held entitled to the Old Pension Scheme as they were not fresh appointees. He also placed reliance on the decisions passed by this Tribunal in the cases of similarly situated employees: OA No. 1047/2014 (Baldev Singh and others), decided on 26.05.2015, and OA No. 1048/2014 (Satish Kumar and others), decided on 02.07.2015, both of which were implemented by the respondents in 2016, granting the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme to those employees.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1