Casual laborers entitled to Old Pension Scheme where notional regularization date precedes New Pension Scheme implementation.

The applicant was engaged as a casual laborer by Northern Railway on July 15, 1981, and disengaged on December 14, 1981, after which his name was placed on the Live Casual Labour Register (LCLR)

Following the re-engagement of his juniors, the applicant, along with five others, filed O.A. No. 420/2003.

On August 22, 2003, the Tribunal directed the respondents to re-engage the applicants notionally from the date their juniors were engaged

In subsequent contempt proceedings (C.P. No. 366/2004), the respondents committed to absorbing the applicant into Group ‘D’ posts with pay fixation and seniority parity

The applicant was re-engaged in 2005 and later regularized

In 2020, the applicant discovered he was placed under the New Pension Scheme (NPS) while his juniors were under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS).

He applied for conversion to OPS under Railway Board Circular RBE No. 28/2020, but the respondents failed to finalize his case, alleging he did not submit required documents

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, by counting 50% of his casual service

2. Whether the applicant's service should be treated as regularized from 1998 at par with his juniors in accordance with previous Tribunal directions and respondent undertakings

3. Whether the principles of judicial propriety require the Tribunal to grant relief identical to that granted to the applicant’s co-petitioners in previous related litigations

The court primarily applied the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, and the Railway Board Circular No. D-43/12/2018-F(E)III (RBE No. 28/2020) dated March 3, 2020, which provides for coverage under the OPS for employees whose selection was finalized before January 1, 2004

It relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 3938/2017) regarding the counting of 50% of casual service prior to regularization for pensionary benefits

Furthermore, the court emphasized the doctrine of judicial propriety, which mandates adherence to precedents and respect for the decisions of coordinate Benches to ensure legal consistency

The Tribunal observed that the applicant was the third of six co-applicants in the original O.A. No. 420/2003

It noted that the coordinate Bench had already granted identical relief to two other co-applicants from that same litigation—Virender Singh (O.A. No. 986/2021) and Davinder Singh (O.A. No. 985/2021)

The respondents' primary defense—that the applicant failed to submit documents—was found to be the same argument rejected in the Virender Singh and Davinder Singh cases

The Tribunal reasoned that there were no material distinctions between the present case and the decided matters.

Consequently, applying the principle of judicial propriety, the Tribunal held that the reasoning used to grant OPS benefits to the applicant’s peers applied with equal force to him

The Tribunal determined that the crucial date for qualifying service must be August 22, 2003 (the date of the order in the original O.A.), to maintain parity

The court held that the qualifying service for pensionary purposes must be reckoned from August 22, 2003, with notional benefits

The respondents were ordered to pay arrears and the difference in pension from the due date and to take necessary steps for the conversion from NPS to OPS within 12 weeks of receiving the order

No costs were awarded