Employees eligible for regularization before 1 January 2004 are entitled to CCS Pension Rules, not NPS.

The applicant had been engaged as a casual Floor Assistant at Doordarshan Kendra, Bhubaneswar, since 1988.

In O.A. No. 441/1992, the Tribunal directed preparation of a Kendrawise seniority list and consideration of appointment against future vacancies, with sympathetic consideration of age relaxation; that order ultimately attained finality before the Supreme Court.

In O.A. No. 187/2006, the Tribunal directed the respondents to explore sanctioning regular posts for accommodating the applicant and similarly situated persons under the regularisation scheme, noting that the applicant had been found eligible for regularisation since 1995.

The applicant was eventually regularised as a Floor Assistant by order dated 26 June 2015 and joined on 29 June 2015; he completed probation on 13 October 2017.

He thereafter filed the present application seeking retrospective regularisation from 2 September 1992 and coverage under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 instead of the National Pension System (NPS).

The respondents contested the application on merits and on the ground of constructive res judicata.

Whether the applicant’s claim for retrospective regularisation with effect from 2 September 1992 was barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata, in view of the earlier proceedings in O.A. Nos. 441/1992 and 187/2006.

Whether, despite his regularisation in 2015, the applicant was entitled to coverage under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 rather than the NPS, because he had entered service as a casual worker before 1 January 2004 and had been found eligible for regularisation in 1995.

The Tribunal applied the doctrine of res judicata, including its principle of constructive res judicata, to hold that a claim for regularisation already adjudicated in prior proceedings could not be reopened.

It also relied on the distinction between the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and the NPS, the latter having replaced the former for relevant entrants from 1 January 2004.

The Tribunal followed Punjab School Education Board v. Satnam Singh, Civil Appeal No. 6865 of 2025, decided on 9 September 2026, for the principle that employees whose entry into service was prior to 1 January 2004 on a casual, daily-wage, or ad hoc basis could receive the benefit of the pension regime in force before that date.

Applying that principle, the Tribunal held that an employee’s prior qualifying engagement and eligibility for regularisation could support coverage under the pre-2004 pension rules notwithstanding subsequent formal regularisation.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s request for retrospective regularisation from 2 September 1992 was effectively concluded by the orders in the earlier original applications.

Since the applicant had already pursued relief concerning regularisation and those proceedings had attained finality, the present claim was barred by res judicata and could not be granted.

However, the pension claim was treated separately.

The applicant had continuously worked as a casual employee since 1988 and had been declared eligible for regularisation as early as 1995, both dates being substantially prior to 1 January 2004.

Applying the ratio of Satnam Singh, the Tribunal considered the applicant’s substantive entry and recognised eligibility, rather than merely the date of formal regularisation in 2015, and concluded that he was entitled to the pension regime applicable before introduction of the NPS.

It nevertheless allowed the pension-related claim, holding that the applicant was entitled to be brought under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, together with subsequent amendments, instead of the NPS, on account of his pre-1 January 2004 casual engagement and eligibility for regularisation from 1995.

The respondents were directed to take consequential steps and issue the necessary order within 90 days of receiving the Tribunal’s order.

The O.A. was accordingly allowed in part, with no order as to costs; any pending miscellaneous application was also disposed of.