Regularisation of contractual employees does not retroactively entitle them to benefits of older pension schemes; adherence to newer regulations is mandatory.

ORDER :

Heard Mr. Sivaraju Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. K.Sinduja Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. N.B.Sudarshan, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

2. The impugned order dated 15.04.2024 passed in OA/021/0635/2018 rejected the prayer of the petitioner to be considered for GPF and Old Pension Scheme. The applicant was appointed on contract basis as Associate Professor on 03.05.2002 under Employment Notification dated 07.05.2000. Her contractual engagement was extended till 2012. Under a Regularisation Scheme framed under National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj (NIRD) Rules, 2011 for regular appointment of the academic staff (appointed on contract basis), her services were regularised with effect from 04.05.2012. Her representation, thereafter, to grant the benefit of Old Pension Scheme stood rejected by the respondent Institute which led to the filing of the instant OA in 2018. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) after considering the case of the parties and the decision rendered in Civil Appeal No.542 of 2023 refused to accept the contention made by the applicant by holding as under:

“16. It is to be noted that once the applicants who have intervened before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering the submissions made by both parties, according to the respondents, there are 20 academic staff who will benefit if the orders of this Tribunal and the Hon’ble High Court are upheld. According to the employees (the applicants before us), six staff members will be benefitted and almost four persons were there before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is not open to us that we can intervene with the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and pass our orders as contended by the applicants in view of the subsequent OM issued by the DOPT on 03.03.2023 in the matter of serving employees and 20.10.2023 in the matter of retired employees. It is to be noted that there is no ambiguity at all for the one who has been appointed prior to 2004, though the notification has been issued prior to 01.01.2004 notifying the vacancies arose prior to 01.01.2004 for regular appointments. However, they have been given an appointment after 01.01.2004. It is to be noted that in the matter in hand, these applicants were appointed on contractual basis prior to 01.01.2004 wherein they themselves accepted certain conditions and there was an agreement between the employee and employer. It is also to be noted that, as a one-time measure, when the department has decided to regularize their services and issued orders with conditions, the applicants have accepted the said conditions and they have not challenged nor protested against the said condition. Therefore, it is not open to the applicants to raise the dispute at this length of time and the said OM, issued by the DOPT, will not support the applicants’ claim. It is to be noted that once the issue has attained finality before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, though another matter has been sub judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order which is available would prevail upon us. Hence, we are not accepting the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicants.

17. In view of the above, the O.As. are dismissed. No order as to costs.”

3. Assailing the impugned order, the applicant is before us in writ jurisdiction.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. The contentions of the parties are hereunder dealt with one after the other.

6. Th