Regular appointment after January 1, 2004, mandates New Pension Scheme coverage regardless of prior casual service.

The applicants were initially engaged as casual workers by the Geological Survey of India (GSI) starting around 1986

While a seniority list was prepared in 2001 for regularization, and some juniors were regularized prior to January 1, 2004 (thereby falling under the Old Pension Scheme), the applicants were not regularized at that stage

Following multiple rounds of litigation (O.A. 1106/2001 and O.A. 1196/2005), the applicants were eventually appointed to regular Group ‘D’ posts in March 2010

Consequently, the respondents placed them under the New Pension Scheme (NPS)

The applicants submitted representations seeking the benefit of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (Old Pension Scheme), arguing that half of their casual service should count as qualifying service and that they were victims of discrimination compared to their juniors

The respondents rejected these claims via a speaking order dated May 16, 2023

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to coverage under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, despite their regular appointment occurring after the January 1, 2004 cut-off date.

2. Whether the counting of half of the service rendered as casual labourers for qualifying service entitles an employee to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS).

3. Whether the delay in regularization and the subsequent parity claim with juniors regularized before 2004 constitutes a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Tribunal applied the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and the New Pension Scheme (NPS) notification, which mandates that all government servants appointed on or after January 1, 2004, are governed by the NPS

It referred to the Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated February 17, 2020, which allows coverage under the OPS only if the selection process was completed before January 1, 2004

The Tribunal also utilized the principle that "negative equality" cannot be claimed under Article 14 of the Constitution

Finally, the legal doctrines of acquiescence and estoppel were applied regarding the acceptance of appointment dates

The Tribunal found that the applicability of a pension scheme is strictly determined by the date of entry into regular service; since the applicants joined in 2010, they naturally fall under the NPS

The Tribunal rejected the reliance on the O.M. dated February 17, 2020, noting that no formal selection process for the applicants had been completed prior to 2004; their 2010 appointment was the result of subsequent administrative action and litigation

Regarding the counting of casual service, the Tribunal clarified that even if such service is counted for the "computation" of qualifying service, it cannot retroactively alter the "pension regime" itself, which is fixed by the date of regular appointment

On the issue of discrimination, the court held that employees regularized before 2004 constitute a distinct class; parity cannot be claimed where the circumstances of appointment differ

Lastly, the Tribunal observed that the applicants accepted their 2010 appointment without challenging the date at the relevant time, thereby attracting the principles of estoppel and acquiescence

The Tribunal upheld the impugned speaking order dated May 16, 2023, finding no illegality or infirmity in the respondents' decision to deny retrospective entry into the Old Pension Scheme

No order was made as to costs