Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)
Kewal Singh vs Cpwd on 19 February, 2026 cites

Baldev Singh Dhillon And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 11 September, 1996

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were being made, whereas the present applicant was never granted temporary status, the earlier grant having been withdrawn as inadmissible since he was a Group-C employee.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.
Delhi High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 20 - J B Goel - Full Document

Pawan Kumar And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 11 January, 2023

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.
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 4 - S K Kait - Full Document

Harbans Lal vs State Of Punjab on 23 January, 1996

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 813 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Satbir Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 28 May, 2021

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 97 - N V Ramana - Full Document

Jagmohinder Kaur And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 February, 2015

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.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 4 - A G Masih - Full Document

Rameshwar Singh Thakur vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 24 November, 2015

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 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

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.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - P Jain - Full Document
1   2 Next