Pre-regularization project service cannot count as qualifying pension service absent statutory authorization.

The applicant, Dr. Sneh Arora, worked at AIIMS as a Research Associate/Senior Research Associate in successive ICMR, DBT and other research projects from 8 December 1991 until her absorption in the Core Research Cadre in 2017.

She claimed that her project service was continuous and exceeded 15 years, and sought absorption/regularisation and counting of her past service for pensionary benefits.

Her earlier requests for absorption were rejected, but she was ultimately absorbed as Scientist-I under the Core Research Cadre by memorandum dated 21 June 2017, with effect from 29 June 2017.

The absorption memorandum treated her as a fresh entrant and provided that she would be governed by the New Pension Scheme (NPS); she accepted the terms and joined accordingly.

After absorption, the applicant sought counting of her pre-absorption service and grant of benefits under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), or, alternatively, application of the NPS from its implementation date in 2004 rather than from 2017.

AIIMS rejected her claim, relying on its revised Regularisation Guidelines dated 26 September 2008, which provided that past service before regularisation would not count for service benefits and that regularised employees would be treated as fresh entrants.

1. Whether the applicant’s service as a temporary/project employee before her regularisation could be counted as qualifying service for pension under the Old Pension Scheme?

2. Whether the conditions treating the applicant as a fresh entrant and placing her under the New Pension Scheme violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution?

3. Whether the applicant could claim parity with other employees whose pre-regularisation service was allegedly counted for pensionary purposes?

Qualifying service for pension ordinarily accrues only from service rendered against a regular sanctioned post; temporary, ad hoc or project service outside the regular establishment cannot be counted unless the applicable statutory rules, regulations or pension scheme expressly permit it.

The Tribunal relied on Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharati Corporation of India v. Magi H. Desai and Parmeshwar Nanda v. State of Jharkhand, which recognise this principle.

The AIIMS Revised Regularisation Guidelines dated 26 September 2008 expressly excluded pre-regularisation service from service benefits and treated regularised employees as fresh entrants.

The NPS was mandatory for new Central Government recruits appointed on or after 1 January 2004, whereas OPS was applicable only where the employee held a qualifying pensionable post within the relevant period.

Further, an employee who accepts appointment or regularisation terms without challenging them cannot subsequently claim benefits contrary to those terms, as recognised in National Institute of Rural Development v. Shyam Sunder Prasad.

Articles 14 and 16 do not entitle an employee to claim “negative parity” or perpetuate an allegedly erroneous benefit granted to another employee.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s work was performed in successive research projects, with remuneration paid from project grants, and not against a regular sanctioned pensionable post.

Accordingly, her pre-2017 project service did not constitute qualifying service for OPS.

The 2008 Guidelines expressly excluded such service, and the 21 June 2017 absorption memorandum reiterated that she would be treated as a fresh entrant and governed by the NPS.

The applicant accepted those conditions, tendered her acceptance and joined service without challenging either the memorandum or the Guidelines; therefore, she could not later seek pensionary benefits inconsistent with the accepted terms.

Her reliance on unequal bargaining power and on Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand did not persuade the Tribunal, particularly because the relevant conditions had not been directly challenged.

Finally, the alleged treatment of Dr. J.C. Bhardwaj and Dr. Sujata Joshi could not override the governing pension rules or create a right to negative parity.

Her pre-regularisation project service could not be counted as qualifying service for OPS because it was not service rendered against a regular sanctioned pensionable post and was expressly excluded by the applicable AIIMS Guidelines.

Her placement under the NPS and treatment as a fresh entrant were upheld, as she had accepted the absorption terms without challenging them.

The claim of discriminatory parity was also rejected.

The O.A., including the prayer to quash the impugned order and to grant OPS or NPS benefits from an earlier date, was dismissed, with no order as to costs.