The court upheld the principle that temporary status employees, upon regularization, are entitled to GPF deduction and benefits under the New Pension Scheme.

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.

This writ petition is filed by the Union of India and others questioning the order made by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigrah bench (Circuit Bench, Shimla) in O.A No. 1256-HP-2013 dated 30.03.2015 wherein application filed by the respondent was allowed.

2. Brief facts which are required to be stated are as follows:-

3. The respondent joined the service of the appellants as a casual labourer on 09.03.1992 Pursuant to the scheme of grant of temporary status issued vide circular dated 12.04.1991, he was granted temporary status in the year 1993. The scheme provides that 50% of the service rendered under temporary status has to be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits after regularization. As per the scheme, after rendering three years continuous service after conferment of temporary status the casual labourers would be treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees for the purpose of contribution of General Provident Fund (GPF) and they will be eligible to get Festival Advance/Flood Advance etc. and Office Memorandum bearing OM No. 49014/1/2004-Estt(C) dated 26.04.2004 modified the scheme of grant of temporary status in view of introduction of New Pension Scheme.

4. According to the said scheme on regularization of casual workers of central government offices are to come under new pension scheme, which was applicable to the persons appointed to the central government service on or after 01.01.2004 The respondent's services were regularized on 12.09.2008 as Peon in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 by order dated 05.09.2008 Thereafter deduction of GPF of the respondent was stopped. According to the respondent, the regularization granted in the year 2008 could not be treated as a fresh appointment so as to take away benefit of old pension scheme. The said stand was opposed by the appellants by contending that as per the instructions given as per new scheme dated 26.04.2004, deduction of GPF was stopped and interest upto 30.04.2004 was allowed on GPF accumulation of the casual labourers, who were given temporary status as per DoPT OM dated 27.07.2004 The said temporary status employees derive the benefit of regular service only upto regularization against a regular post and after 01.01.2004, even regularly employed employees are entitled only to the contributory New Pension Scheme (NPS) and not pension and the service as casual labourer with temporary status would count for pension purpose only if he is eligible for pension.

5. The Tribunal relied upon the orders passed in OA No. 1195 of 2006 (Umesh Singh v. Union of India) dated 30.11.2006, which was upheld by the Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 2294/2007 on 30.03.2007, which was also implemented by the appellants and allowed the application holding that 50% of the service rendered prior to the grant of status are to be towards qualifying service. SLP (C) Nos. 25360-25362 filed against the said order of Delhi High Court was also dismissed. The very same Bench in OA No. 567-HP-2010 has decided the similar issue on 23.11.2010, which was challenged before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 3748 of 2011, which was dismissed on 29.03.2012.No distinguishable feature was shown by the appellants regarding non-application of the said decisions to the respondent's case and the Tribunal following the earlier orders allowed the application and directed the appellants to implement the order of the Tribunal within a period of three months. The said order is challenged by contending that the respondent had worked as temporary status employee from 1993 to 2009. The deduction of GPF was stopped after the introduction of New Pension Scheme and interest upto 30.04.2004 was allowed on the GPF accumulation and New Pension Scheme alone is applicable and as such, the respondent is not covered under CCS Pension Rules, 1972 as the same is applicable only to regular employees of Govt. of India.

6. In the writ petition filed, the appellants have f