RAKESH KUMAR vs ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

1

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A No. 723/2022

th
Chandigarh, this the 29 day of September, 2026

HON’BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)

Rakesh Kumar s/o Sh. Ranjit Singh, aged 47, years, working as
Accountant in the office of Principal Accountant General (Audit), 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)

O R D E R
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 as pleaded are that the applicant joined
services with the respondent No. 2 as a Casual Labourer on 01.04.1998
on daily wage basis against sanctioned post in the office of AG (A&E). He
continued to work with the respondents without any break and nothing
adverse was ever communicated to him. Although the applicant was
engaged by the respondents in the year 1998 on daily wage basis.
However, regulariation of applicant’s services was delayed by the
respondents. Ultimately, the daily wage service of the applicant was
followed by the regularization of his service and substantive appointment
as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) vide order dated 09.12.2011 w.e.f.
05.12.2011. Subsequently, the applicant was promoted as Clerk. 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
26.04.2004. 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 13
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 01.01.2004 is entitled to benefit
MANDEEP SINGH MANDEEP SINGH

3

under Old Pension Scheme or New Pension Scheme was subject 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 another order dated
19.12.2019 of Bangalore Bench in 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 18.04.2013, wherein the
employee who were appointed on daily wages basis and their services
were regularized after 01.01.2004, 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 01.01.2004. The case of
the applicant for switching over him to old pension Scheme is squarely
covered O.M dated 28.07.2016/26.02.2016. The applicant based upon
the judicial pronouncements submitted a representation dated
05.05.2022 and requested for switching over to the Old Pension Scheme,
but the same has remained without any response till date.
MANDEEP SINGH MANDEEP SINGH

4

5. The respondents have filed written statement contesting the claim of the
applicant and stated that the applicant was initially engaged on daily
wages in the year 1998 in the respondent office but during the year 2011
he was appointed through direct recruitment as a MTS. The vacancy of
this post was given wide publicity by advertising it in national newspapers
and Employment News. The respondent deducted CPF from his salary
because the applicant had been appointed through direct recruitment to
the post of MTS, 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 and order dated 27.03.2026 in O.A No. 710/2022.
7. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the
applicability of dictum of orders dated 08.08.2025 and 27.03.2026 passed
by this Tribunal and urged 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 01.04.1998 as a daily waged against a sanctioned
post and continued to serve uninterruptedly till 05.12.2011. The crucial
fact is that the applicant had rendered 13 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.
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
MANDEEP SINGH MANDEEP SINGH

5

(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 and
27.03.2026, we have no reason to take a different view. Therefore, the
instant O.A is disposed of in terms of the order dated 08.08.2025 and
27.03.2026 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