Accountant With 13 Years’ Daily-Wage Service Gets Old-Pension Relief, Subject To High Court Challenge: CAT

In brief

The question

1. Whether an employee initially engaged on daily wages against a sanctioned post before 1 January 2004, but regularised thereafter, is entitled to coverage under the OPS rather than the NPS.

The court held

The Tribunal found merit in the applicant’s claim and disposed of the application in terms of its orders dated 8 August 2025 and 27 March 2026, subject to the final outcome of the High Court challenge to the 8 August 2025 order.

It also directed

No order as to costs was made.

01Facts

The applicant began working as a casual labourer on daily wages against a sanctioned post on 1 April 1998.

¶ 2

His service was regularised when he was substantively appointed as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) with effect from 5 December 2011; he was subsequently promoted as a Clerk.

¶ 2

The respondents applied the New Pension Scheme (NPS) and deducted contributions from his salary, maintaining that he had entered the MTS post through direct recruitment in 2011.

¶ 2, 5

The applicant sought coverage under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), relying on prior Tribunal decisions and a Government of India memorandum concerning certain employees regularised after 1 January 2004.

¶ 3–4

After his representation went unanswered, he filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

¶ 1, 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether an employee initially engaged on daily wages against a sanctioned post before 1 January 2004, but regularised thereafter, is entitled to coverage under the OPS rather than the NPS.

¶ 2, 8–10

ii.2. Whether the applicant’s claim should be decided in accordance with the Tribunal’s earlier orders dated 8 August 2025 and 27 March 2026, notwithstanding that the former order was under challenge before the High Court.

¶ 6–7, 11

03Law Applied

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

¶ 1

The Tribunal considered the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and the NPS framework introduced for Central Government employees, including the Government of India communication dated 26 April 2004.

¶ 1–2, 5

It relied on Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, CWP No. 2371 of 2010 (Punjab and Haryana High Court, 31 August 2010); P. Venkatesh v. Institute of Aerospace Medicine, IAF, O.A. No. 554/2019 (CAT Bangalore Bench, 19 December 2019); and Jagmohinder Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 585/CH/2012 (CAT Chandigarh Bench, 18 April 2013), which it treated as supporting OPS coverage for employees whose initial engagement pre-dated 1 January 2004 despite later regularisation.

¶ 10

The Tribunal also applied its own orders dated 8 August 2025 and 27 March 2026 to the applicant’s claim.

¶ 6–7, 11

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Section 19

04Reasoning

The Tribunal found it undisputed that the applicant had worked continuously from 1 April 1998 until his regularisation on 5 December 2011, having rendered approximately 13 years of service before regular appointment.

¶ 8

It held that denying OPS coverage solely because he entered the regular MTS post through direct recruitment was unjustified, in light of the authorities it cited concerning pre-2004 engagement followed by post-2004 regularisation.

¶ 5, 8, 10

Because the same issue had also been addressed in the Tribunal’s 2025 and 2026 orders, and the respondents’ counsel did not dispute their applicability, the Tribunal followed those orders.

¶ 7, 11

The challenge to the 2025 order before the High Court did not prevent the Tribunal from applying its prior decisions, but the final relief was made subject to the High Court’s outcome.

¶ 11