Temporary PPO employees in Nepal are entitled to pension under the CCS Temporary Service Rules.

The applicants were employees of the Pension Paying Offices of the Embassy of India at Pokhara/Dharan/Kathmandu, Nepal. They had been locally appointed in temporary capacities and served for lengthy periods, some exceeding 20 years, before retiring from posts such as Sub Treasury Officer, Dafatry, Dormitory Incharge, Store NCO and Mali.

The lead applicant, Budhi Man Thapa, was appointed as an LDC on 01.06.1981, promoted successively to UDC, Head Clerk and Sub Treasury Officer, and retired on 30.06.2018.

The applicants sought pensionary benefits under Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, read with the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Their representations were not decided, leading to earlier proceedings before the Tribunal and consequential communications rejecting their claims.

The respondents contended that the applicants were locally recruited foreign-establishment employees excluded from the pension rules and were governed only by executive instructions providing terminal gratuity, not pension.

The Tribunal heard the matters together because they involved common questions of law and fact, taking OA No. 3120/2023 as the lead case.

Whether the decision of the Delhi High Court in Shiv Mangal Rai v. Union of India and Basistha Narayan Chaudhury v. Union of India, concerning pensionary benefits of employees of the Pokhara Pension Paying Office, was a judgment in personam or a judgment in rem.

Whether Rule 2(f) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, excluding persons locally recruited for service in diplomatic, consular or other Indian establishments in foreign countries, applied to the applicants employed in the Indian Pension Paying Offices in Nepal.

Whether the applicants, despite being appointed locally and in a temporary capacity, were entitled to pension under Rule 10 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, read with the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

The Tribunal applied Rule 10 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, which entitles an eligible temporary Government servant retiring on superannuation to terminal benefits on the same scale as those admissible to a permanent Government servant under the applicable pension rules.

It considered Rule 2(f) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which excludes persons locally recruited for service in diplomatic, consular or other Indian establishments in foreign countries from the operation of those Rules.

The Tribunal relied substantially on the Delhi High Court’s decision in Shiv Mangal Rai and connected matters, which had granted pensionary benefits to similarly placed employees of the Pokhara Pension Paying Office; although the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge, it kept the question of law open.

The Tribunal also considered Articles 6 and 7 of the India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship, 1950, concerning reciprocal national treatment and similar privileges for nationals of both countries.

The governing principle adopted was that the special character of the Nepal Pension Paying Offices and the India-Nepal relationship justified treating their employees as entitled to pension notwithstanding the general exclusion for locally recruited foreign-establishment staff.

The Tribunal held that, although the applicants had technically been recruited locally and the appointment letters described their employment as non-transferable local appointments, the Pension Paying Offices in Nepal possessed a special character distinct from ordinary diplomatic or consular establishments.

The offices were established to administer pensions to ex-servicemen, including substantial numbers of Nepali citizens who had served in the Indian Army. In the Tribunal’s view, the welfare responsibility undertaken by India towards such ex-servicemen extended, in the circumstances, to personnel who served in the pension offices administering their benefits.

The Tribunal therefore treated the reasoning in Shiv Mangal Rai as establishing, for practical purposes, that the Rule 2(f) exclusion did not apply to the Pokhara and Kathmandu Pension Paying Office establishments, even though the Supreme Court had formally left the question of law open.

The respondents’ reliance on executive instructions granting only gratuity could not defeat the applicants’ entitlement under the statutory pension framework as interpreted by the Tribunal.

The respondents were directed to process and remit all pensionary benefits to the applicants within eight weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

However, considering the special circumstances of the case, the Tribunal denied interest on the delayed pensionary payments and made no order as to costs.