JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

1. The issue involved in this Civil Appeal is of entitlement of respondent no.1 to pensionary benefits. The appellant is an autonomous organisation working under the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India. The appellant has more than 100 faculty members drawn from about 20 disciplines. It trains about 4,000 officials as well as non-officials engaged in the field of rural development. It is also conducting international programmes for the benefit of third world countries.

2. With effect from 14th August 2002, the appellant appointed respondent no. 1 as an Associate Professor. Though the post was admittedly a regular post, he was appointed on a contract basis for a period of three years which was extendable to five years. Offer of contract appointment was issued on 22nd July 2002 and the agreement was executed by the appellant on 14th August 2002. Respondent no.1, after his appointment, opted for the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme of the appellant and submitted the necessary documents.

3. On the basis of an application made by respondent no.1, he was offered a contract appointment to the post of Professor by the appellant for a period of three years which was extendable to five years. The offer dated 1st May 2007 records that respondent no.1 will be entitled to benefits of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPF) as per the rules of the appellant.

4. On 18th February 2009, the Executive Council of the appellant decided to regularise services of such faculty members who were employed on a contract basis on regular posts as a one-time measure. Accordingly, NIRD Rules, 2011 for Regular Appointment of the Academic Staff (Appointed on Contract Basis) (for short “the Regularisation Rules”) were framed. By order dated 4th May 2012, the appointment of respondent no.1 was regularised on the post of Professor. The order itself records that the appointment of respondent no.1 was made to a sanctioned post. The order records that respondent no.1 will be entitled to pensionary benefits under the new pension scheme.

5. On 10th September 2012, a representation was made by respondent no.1 to the Director of the appellant for the grant of benefits under the old pension scheme to him. It was recorded that the new pension scheme was applicable to those who were appointed on or after 1st January 2004. Even subsequently, representations were made by respondent no.1 in the years 2013 and 2014.

6. Original application was filed by respondent no.1 before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the action of applying the new pension scheme to him. The Tribunal held that respondent no.1 was initially appointed as an Associate Professor through direct recruitment against a permanent post on a contract basis. Even his appointment as a professor on a contract basis was on a permanent post. The Tribunal noted that respondent no.1’s appointment was regularised from 14th August 2012. However, his service under the contract employment was required to be considered for the purposes of determining pensionary benefits. Therefore, the Tribunal proceeded to hold that the action of the appellant of applying the new pension scheme was illegal. A direction was issued to the appellant to consider the case of respondent no.1 under the old pension scheme. It is this order which has been confirmed by a Division Bench of Telangana High Court by the impugned judgment and order.

SUBMISSIONS

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that respondent no.1’s first appointment as an Associate Professor on 14th August 2002 was on a contract basis which came to an end after he was appointed as a Professor on a contract basis in the year 2007. Her submission is that as the order of regularisation was passed in the year 2012, he is not entitled to claim a pension under the old scheme with effect from the year 2002. The learned counsel further submitted that the Regularisation Rules under which the service of