Intermittent casual service followed by post-2004 regularization is ineligible for Old Pension Scheme coverage.

The applicant was initially engaged as a daily wager in 1996, serving intermittently until 1997

Following a break in service, he was re-engaged in October 2002 as a daily wage peon and worked continuously until his services were regularized as a Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) effective 01.01.2013

The applicant sought a direction to count his daily wage service from 2002 to 2012 as qualifying service for pension and requested migration from the National Pension Scheme (NPS) to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972/2021

He contended that since his initial engagement preceded the 01.01.2004 cut-off for NPS, his regularization should "relate back" to his initial entry

The respondents opposed this, stating his regularization occurred against vacancies identified for 2009–2013 and that he was never granted "temporary status"

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be covered under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) on the basis that his initial engagement as a daily wager commenced prior to 01.01.2004

2. Whether the entire period of service rendered as a daily wager (2002–2012) prior to regularization can be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits

The court primarily applied the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules and DoP&T O.M. dated 03.03.2023, which restricts the option for OPS to cases where recruitment was notified prior to 22.12.2003

It relied on the doctrine of "continuity of service" as a prerequisite for service relating back to an initial appointment

Furthermore, it applied the principle established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uday Pratap Thakur and Another v. State of Bihar and Others (2023 SCC Online SC 527), which holds that service rendered in a non-regular capacity cannot be counted in its entirety for determining pensionary benefits, distinguishing between qualifying service and the computation of pension

The Tribunal observed that the applicant's service was not continuous, noting a significant break between 1997 and 2002

It reasoned that continuity is the sine qua non for the legal fiction that regularization relates back to the date of initial entry

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove he was engaged against a sanctioned post or conferred "temporary status" under the 10.09.1993 Scheme prior to the 2004 cut-off

Applying Uday Pratap Thakur, the Tribunal held that counting daily wage service in its entirety for pension would amount to "retrospective regularisation," which is impermissible in law

Since the applicant's legal entry into regular government service occurred only in 2013, he could not be classified as a "pre-2004" entrant for OPS eligibility

However, the Tribunal directed the respondents to examine if any limited benefit of past service for qualifying service is admissible under existing executive instructions or rules and to extend such benefits if due

No order as to costs was made