Pre-2004 work-charged or contractual service counts toward qualifying service under the Old Pension Scheme.

Applicant No. 1 was engaged as a daily-wage Security Guard in 1996; Applicant No. 2 was engaged on contract in 1998.

After their terminations were set aside by the Labour Court, both were reinstated and later regularized as Security Guard Grade-II on 7 August 2018, with coverage under the New Pension Scheme.

They sought coverage under the GPF-cum-Old Pension Scheme, contending that their pre-regularization service began before 1 January 2004 and was continuous, including by virtue of the Labour Court orders.

The Tribunal had earlier directed the respondents to decide their claim; the Institute rejected it on 22 May 2025.

The applicants relied on the Tribunal’s decision in Madan Lal and Others v. PGI, O.A. No. 59/2022.

Whether the applicants’ pre-regularization daily-wage or contract service, rendered before 1 January 2004, entitled them to coverage under the GPF-cum-Old Pension Scheme.

Whether the applicants were entitled to the same relief granted to similarly situated employees in Madan Lal.

The applicants invoked Rules 2, 13, 14 and 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, concerning the applicability of the rules and qualifying service.

The Tribunal relied principally on its decision in Madan Lal, which applied Neelam Aggarwal v. Union of India, Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, and the principles in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab to support counting pre-regularization service for pension where service before 1 January 2004 was followed by regularization.

It also referred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in Municipal Council Qadian v. Musthaw Masih and the Supreme Court’s decision in S.D. Jayaprakash v. Union of India concerning the counting of contractual service towards pensionary benefits.

The Tribunal treated Madan Lal as governing the applicants’ claim.

The Tribunal considered the applicants similarly situated to those in Madan Lal, whose pre-regularization service had been held countable for pensionary benefits.

The respondents did not dispute the applicability of that decision.

Applying its reasoning and the cited authorities, the Tribunal held that the applicants were entitled to parity and rejected the basis for denying them the Old Pension Scheme.

The operative paragraph identifies the order set aside as dated 7 September 2024, although the facts identify the impugned rejection as the order dated 22 May 2025.

The judgment’s cited Madan Lal order also appears with inconsistent dates in the text.