Ad hoc service following proper selection counts toward pensionary benefits despite regularization under New Pension Scheme.

The Respondent was appointed as an Assistant Research Officer (ARO) (Unani) on an ad hoc basis on September 10, 1996, following a formal selection process initiated by Advertisement 1/1996

He served continuously in this capacity until his services were regularized on December 28, 2014

Due to the regularization occurring after the implementation of the New Pension Scheme (NPS) on January 1, 2004, the Petitioners enrolled him under the NPS rather than the Old Pension Scheme (OPS)

The Respondent challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA 1313/2015, which ruled in his favor on May 6, 2024, directing the grant of OPS benefits

The Union of India challenged the CAT’s order via this writ petition.

1. Whether an employee appointed on an ad hoc basis through a proper selection procedure prior to January 1, 2004, is entitled to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) if their regularization occurs after the implementation of the New Pension Scheme (NPS).

The court relied on the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum (OM) dated March 3, 2024 (as cited by CAT), which allows OPS benefits for government service initiated prior to December 22, 2003

The court applied the principle that regularization of an ad hoc employee—provided the initial appointment followed a proper selection process against a regular vacancy—entails the counting of the ad hoc service period toward pensionary benefits

The court further followed its own precedent in Union of India v. Dr. Khursheed Khatoon, W.P.(C) 4645/2026, which settled an identical dispute regarding the transition from ad hoc service to NPS/OPS

The Court observed that the Respondent’s entry into service in 1996 resulted from a public advertisement and a subsequent selection test, establishing that his ad hoc appointment was not backdoor entry but followed due process

Although the formal regularization order was issued in 2014 (post-NPS), the Court reasoned that since the Respondent had rendered continuous service since 1996, the ad hoc period must be counted for pensionary purposes

The Court noted that the Petitioners had already extended similar benefits to other litigants under previous Tribunal orders upheld by the High Court (e.g., WPC No. 10475/2018 and WPC No. 1691/2024)

Consequently, the Court found the legal question fully covered by its recent judgment in the Dr. Khursheed Khatoon case

The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, affirming the Tribunal’s judgment

The Petitioners were directed to grant the OPS benefits as per the Tribunal's timeline