Applicants similarly situated are entitled to identical reliefs granted in prior cases.

The six applicants initially worked as Casual Labourers in INS Venduruthy and were included in the Annexure-A1 gradation list of Casual Labourers prepared in compliance with an order in O.A. No. 622 of 2001.

They, along with others, filed O.A. No. 34 of 2007, which was allowed on 24.07.2007, directing the grant of temporary status within two months and subsequent regularization.

This order (Annexure-A2) was confirmed by the High Court and Supreme Court.

The applicants were granted temporary status on different dates between 23.01.2006 and 22.09.2006, and were regularized on 15.09.2008.

Their current grievance is that senior employees in Annexure-A1 were granted temporary status from 19.03.2002, a benefit denied to them.

They contend that if temporary status is reckoned from 19.03.2002, 50% of their service until regularization would count for pension under CCS (Pension) Rules.

The respondents argue that because the applicants were regularized after 01.01.2004, they fall under the New Pension Scheme, despite a Government O.M. dated 26.02.2016 which provided for Old Pension Scheme coverage for employees granted temporary status who completed three years of continuous service.

The applicants refer to a later O.M. (Annexure-A10) dated 28.07.2016.

Similar cases with identical reliefs were previously decided by this Tribunal in Annexure-A12 (O.A. Nos. 704/2016, 799/2016, 821/2016, and 965/2016) on 24.08.2023, which directed antedating the conferment of temporary status to 19.03.2002.

This order has not been challenged and is being implemented.

Whether the applicants are entitled to have their temporary status conferred with effect from 19.03.2002, similar to their seniors in the gradation list, to enable coverage under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicants' case in line with previous similar orders, specifically Annexure-A12 and Annexure-A10.

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle of parity, relying on its own previous orders, specifically Annexure-A12 (O.A. Nos. 704/2016, 799/2016, 821/2016, and 965/2016), which established that similarly placed employees are entitled to the same reliefs, including considering the antedating of temporary status to 19.03.2002 for pension benefits under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

The Tribunal also noted the relevance of Office Memorandum No. 49014/2/2014-Estt(C) dated 28.07.2016 (Annexure-A10).

The Tribunal found that the applicants were "similarly placed" to the applicants in previous Original Applications (O.A. Nos. 704/2016, 799/2016, 821/2016, and 965/2016), which had been disposed of through a common order (Annexure-A12) on 24.08.2023.

The Annexure-A12 order specifically directed the respondents to antedate the conferment of temporary status to 19.03.2002 for those applicants and to ascertain their entitlement to pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Since Annexure-A12 had not been challenged and its directions were being implemented, the Tribunal concluded that the present applicants should receive the "very same reliefs" based on the principle of parity.

This directly addresses the grievance that though seniors were granted temporary status from 19.03.2002, this benefit was denied to the present applicants, which would affect their pension eligibility under CCS (Pension) Rules.

The Tribunal also noted the relevance of Annexure-A10, a subsequent O.M., in its decision.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to take a decision consistent with the directions in Annexure-A12 and the instructions in Annexure-A10, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the order.

This implies that the applicants' temporary status should be antedated to 19.03.2002, and their entitlement to pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, should be determined accordingly.