Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)Satbir Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 28 May, 2021
He also referred to the principle laid down in Satbir Singh vs.
State of Haryana, 2002(1) SCT 354, to submit that once a controversy
has been settled by a competent court, similarly situated employees
should not be forced to repeatedly approach courts for the same relief.
On the strength of these decisions, the applicant claimed that he was
fully entitled to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme.
Jagmohinder Kaur And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 February, 2015
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.
Ishwar Chand Jain vs High Court Of Punjab & Haryana & Ors on 10 January, 2001
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.
Babunji Bhagat vs State Of Punjab & Others on 1 February, 2023
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.
Sh.Manohar Lal Narula vs Union Territory Chandigarh And Others on 26 March, 2010
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.
1