The applicants, who are presently working as

Assistant Accounts Officers, appeared in the Combined

Graduate Level Examination, 2003 conducted by the Staff

4

Selection Commission and declared successful vide the result

published in April, 2004. They joined the offices of

respondent No.3 between May and September, 2004 on the

posts they had applied for. The New Pension Scheme was

implemented with effect from 01.01.2004 and they were

covered under this Scheme. In 2020, they came to know

about the decisions of various Courts including this Tribunal

granting

relief

to

the

similarly

situated

employees.

Accordingly, they made representations to the respondent

No.3 for grant of benefit under Old Pension Scheme, but to

no avail. The applicants filed O.A. No. 270/2021, which was

disposed off vide order dated 08.02.2021, with a direction to

the respondents to pass reasoned and speaking order on the

pending representations of the applicants, duly keeping into

account the extant policy directives and the judgments

mentioned in their representations within a period of 12

weeks. However, the respondents vide the impugned order

dated 17.05.2021 and others denied their claim.

2.

By filing this O.A., the applicants are seeking to quash

the impugned orders dated 17.05.2021 and others issued by

the respective Officer-in-Charge of the applicants on behalf of

respondent No.3 denying the benefit of Old Pension Scheme.

They are further seeking directions to the respondents to

grant them the benefit of Old pension Scheme and stop

5

further recoveries from their salary towards contribution to

New Pension Scheme etc.

3.

It is submitted that the representations made by the

applicants in this regard were considered and rejected by the

respective Officer-in-Charge of the respondent No.3 in terms

of the O.M. No.57/04/2009-P&PW(B) dated 17.02.2020

issued by the Department of Pension & Pensioners‟ Welfare,

all cases where the results for recruitment were declared

before 01.01.2004 against the vacancies occurring on or

before 31.12.2003, the candidates declared successful for

recruitment shall be eligible for coverage under the CCS

(Pension) Rules, 1972. The cases of the applicants were

rejected indicating that the result of successful candidates in

the selection had not been finalized before 01.01.2004 and,

therefore, they are not eligible for coverage under the CCS

(Pension) Rules, 1972.

4.

In support of their contention, the applicants have

relied upon the following judgments passed by Hon‟ble High

Court of Delhi :

(i) Naveen Kumar Jha vs. Union of India & Others,

W.P.(C) No. 3827/2012 dated 02.11.2012;

6

(ii) Shyam Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India &

Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1358/2017 dated 09.04.2019, affirmed by

the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated 27.11.2019 in

SLP (C) No. 31539/2019;

(iii) Tanaka Ram & others v. Union of India & others,

W.P. (C) No.6680/2017 dated 12.09.2019, affirmed by the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.09.2019 in SLP

(CC) Diary No. 25228/2019;

(iv) Inspector Rajendra Singh & others v. Union of

India & others W.P. (C) No.2810/2016 dated 27.03.2017, ,

(v) Jaswinder Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.,

W.P.(C) No. 1569/2021 dated 15.02.2021;

(vi) Parma Nand Yadav & Ors. vs. Union of India &

Ors., W.P. (C) No. 3834/2013 dated 12.02.2015; and

(vii) Judgment passed by Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal

in O.A. No. 180/00020/2015 titled Sheeba B. & Anr. vs.

Union of India & Ors. dated 15.02.2015;

This Tribunal vide its orders in various O.As. filed by the

similarly situated persons have allowed similar benefits, as

was granted in terms of the judgments of Hon‟ble High Court

of Delhi.

7

5.

The respondents filed their counter affidavit and

reiterated the provisions of O.M. dated 17.02.2020. They also

supported the decision taken by them vide the impugned

orders.

6.

I have heard Mr. D.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the

applicant and Mr. Mohd. Abdullah proxy counsel for Dr. Ch.

Shamsuddin Khan, learned counsel for the