Similarly situated employees are entitled to retrospective regularization and parity under the Old Pension Scheme.

The applicant was appointed as a part-time contingent scavenger/sweeper on September 1, 1979, and served for over 44 years

She and another individual, Mr. M. David, were appointed under the same order

While Mr. David was granted "Temporary Status" effective September 5, 2002, and subsequently received pension benefits under the Old Pension Scheme, the applicant was denied the same benefit

The respondents contended that Mr. David worked 8 hours a day (Full-Time Casual Labour), while the applicant worked only 6.5 hours (Part-Time Casual Labour)

The applicant underwent multiple rounds of litigation (OA 994/2002 and OA 463/2011), both of which resulted in orders directing the respondents to treat her on par with Mr. David

Despite these orders being confirmed by the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court, the respondents granted her Temporary Status only from August 27, 2010, and rejected her request for the 2002 backdate in a speaking order dated October 27, 2014

The applicant, regularized as MTS in 2013, filed the current OA challenging the order dated October 17, 2023, which denied her pension under the Old Pension Scheme

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the conferment of Temporary Status and regularization of services with effect from September 5, 2002, on par with a similarly placed employee for the purpose of pension under the Old Pension Scheme

2. Whether the respondents' continued reliance on the distinction between 6.5 hours and 8 hours of work is legally sustainable after the same ground was previously overruled by the Tribunal and higher courts

The court applied the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme regarding the transition of casual workers to regular establishment

It relied on the principle of non-arbitrariness under Article 14, establishing that similarly situated employees cannot be discriminated against based on superficial distinctions

The court cited Jaggo v. Union of India [SLP (C) No. 11086 of 2024], holding that long-term uninterrupted service cannot be dismissed by labeling initial appointments as "part-time"

It further applied Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee v. Union of India, which mandates that departmental mistakes or delays should not recoil on employees

Commissioner, Karnataka v. C. Muddaiah, affirming that directions issued by a competent court must be implemented without reservation to uphold the Rule of Law

The Tribunal found that the respondents showed "utter disregard" for prior judicial directions from the Tribunal, High Court, and Supreme Court

The court observed that both the applicant and Mr. David were appointed via the same memo in 1979 as part-time workers; thus, the respondents' claim that Mr. David was "full-time" while the applicant was "part-time" lacked evidentiary support and was previously declared arbitrary in OA 994/2002

The Tribunal noted that the nature of sweeping and scavenging work is perennial and cannot be strictly restricted to specific hours to deny benefits

By failing to grant the 2002 backdate despite the 2014 order in OA 463/2011, the respondents effectively attempted to "overturn" judicial decisions through administrative speaking orders

Following the precedent in Jaggo, the court determined that 44 years of essential service entitled the applicant to regularization regardless of the "part-time" label

The respondents' defense of res judicata was rejected as the litigation persisted due to the respondents’ own failure to implement previous court orders

It held that the applicant is entitled to be treated on par with Mr. M. David

The respondents were directed to regularize the applicant's services with effect from September 5, 2002, specifically for the purpose of pension eligibility

Consequently, the court ordered the respondents to grant the applicant pension under the Old Pension Scheme

The directions must be implemented within three months of receiving the order