Telangana High Court
Dr. Mrs Khursheed Khatoon, vs The Central Administrative Tribunal, on 9 July, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Writ Petition No.17877 of 2024
ORDER:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
Aggrieved by the order, dated 15.04.2024, passed in
O.A.No.790 of 2018 by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'), the
present Writ Petition is filed.
2. Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar, learned counsel
representing Sri M.V.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri V.T.Kalyan, learned
counsel representing the learned Deputy Solicitor General
of India appearing for the contesting respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that
the petitioner was initially appointed as Research Assistant
in the year 1986 in the Central Council for Research in
Unani Medicine, New Delhi and she was posted at Clinical
Research Unit (Unani), Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh. The
petitioner, after undergoing regular selection process was
appointed as an ad hoc employee. After rendering
considerable length of service, she was promoted as
Assistant Research Officer and finally, the services of the
AKS,J & LNA,J
::2:: wp_17877_2024
petitioner were regularized as Assistant Research Officer
vide proceedings, dated 28.12.2004 with effect from
03.02.2004. The grievance of the petitioner is that though,
she was appointed as Research Assistant way back in 1986
on ad hoc basis, that too, after undergoing regular selection
process, the respondents were not paying pension to her, as
per the Old Pension Scheme and they were paying pension
only as per the New Pension Scheme on the ground that the
services of the petitioner were regularized vide proceedings,
dated 28.12.2004.
4. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not
extending the old pension scheme, the petitioner has
approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.790 of 2018
contending that the old pension scheme should be extended
to the petitioner. Learned counsel further contended that
the issue whether the persons who were appointed on
ad hoc basis prior to 2004 and whose services were
regularized after 2004 were entitled for old pension scheme
or not was considered by the Delhi High Court vide
common order, dated 06.02.2024 in W.P.(C). No.1691 of
2024 and CMA.No.6982-85 of 2024, wherein, the Delhi
High Court has come to a conclusion that persons who
AKS,J & LNA,J
::3:: wp_17877_2024
were appointed on ad hoc basis prior to 2004 and whose
services came to be regularized after 2004 are entitled for
old pension scheme.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further
contended that the issue raised in this case was decided by
the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pension
Department vide Office Memo, dated 03.03.2023, wherein,
it was categorically held that persons who were appointed
on ad hoc basis prior to 2004 and whose services were
regularized in 2004 are entitled for old Pension Scheme.
But, the Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the said O.A vide
order, dated 15.04.2024 on the ground of delay and laches.
Learned counsel further contended that the issue whether a
case can be dismissed on delay and laches, more so, when
an employee is claiming pension, was considered by the
Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tarsem
Singh 1, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court had held
that the issue in respect of pension and monitory benefits
are concerned, the cause of action is a recurring cause of
action.
C.A.No.5151-5152 of 2008, dated 13.08.2008
AKS,J & LNA,J
::4:: wp_17877_2024
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further
contended that the Tribunal had also dismissed the said
O.A. on the ground that the petitioner has not challenged
the order, dated 28.12.2004, wherein, the services of the
petitioner were regularized with effect from 03.02.2004.
When the services of the petitioner were regularized with
effect from 03.02.2004, the question of not considering the
case of the petitioner for grant of old pension would not
arise. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further
contended that this issue was dealt with in Rule 13 of CCS
Pension Rules, 1972, (for short, 'the Rules') which reads as
follows:-
13. Commencement of qualifying service
Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying
service of a Government servant shall commence from the
date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed
either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity:
Provided that officiating or temporary service is followed
without interruption by substantive appointment in the same
or another service or post:
Provided further that-
(a) in the case of a Government servant in a Group 'D'
service or post who held a lien or a suspended lien
on a permanent pensionable post prior to the 17th
April, 1950, service rendered before attaining the
age of sixteen years shall not count for any purpose,
and
AKS,J & LNA,J
::5:: wp_17877_2024
(b) in the case of a Government servant not covered by
Clause (a), service rendered before attaining the age
of eighteen years shall not count, except for
compensation gratuity.
7. A perusal of the said Rule, makes it clear that persons
who are appointed on temporary basis or ad hoc basis or
substantively are also entitled to count their services.
Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner was
appointed way back in the year 1986, which would mean
that she was appointed on ad hoc basis and Rule 13 of the
Rules will come to the rescue of the petitioner. These
aspects were not considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal
has also not considered the judgment rendered by the Delhi
High Court (referred supra). Therefore, appropriate orders
be passed in the Writ Petition by setting aside the
impugned order, dated 15.04.2024 passed by the Tribunal
in O.A.No.790 of 2018 and further direct the respondents to
consider the case of the petitioner by extending the old
pension scheme, as admittedly, she was appointed as
Research Assistant way back in the year 1986, when the
old pension scheme was in force.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting
respondents had contended that the services of the
AKS,J & LNA,J
::6:: wp_17877_2024
petitioner were regularized and she was given order on
28.12.2004. In the said order, it was made clear that her
services would be regularized with effect from 03.02.2004
and therefore, the question of extending the old pension
scheme to the petitioner would not arise. Therefore, the
Tribunal was justified in dismissing the O.A on the ground
that the petitioner has not challenged the order, dated
28.12.2004 and also on the ground that the petitioner has
approached the Tribunal with delay and laches. Therefore,
there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
9. This Court, having considered the rival submissions
made by both the parties, is of the view that the Tribunal
has not examined the case of the petitioner in terms of Rule
13 of the Rules and also in terms of the law laid down by
the Honourable Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh's case
(referred supra). The Tribunal was not justified in
dismissing the said O.A. Therefore, the impugned order,
dated 15.04.2024 passed in O.A.No.790 of 2018 by the
Tribunal is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same
is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the
Tribunal to re-examine of the case of the petitioner in terms
AKS,J & LNA,J
::7:: wp_17877_2024
of the said Rules and also in terms of the law laid down by
the Honourable Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh's case
(referred supra) and pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law.
10. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is
disposed of. No order as to costs.
11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if
any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: 09.07.2024
prat
