Pension benefits must include ad-hoc service rendered prior to formal appointment; consistent judicial precedent emphasized equitable treatment in public service employment.

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mrs. Pratima K Gupta, Member (J)

The applicants are serving doctors with All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). They were appointed on ad-hoc basis from 1997 to 1999, pursuant to an open advertisement issued by the respondents (AIIMS) calling eligible candidates for appointment on ad-hoc basis. Consequent upon their participation in the selection process and qualifying the same, they were declared successful for ad-hoc appointment. The learned counsel for the applicants explains, due to pendency of litigation before the Hon’ble High Court at Delhi, the respondents were persuaded to issue the notification for ad-hoc appointments, therefore, the applicants were appointed on ad-hoc basis. They were continued on ad-hoc basis until 2005, when an advertisement no. 03/2005(FC) placed at page no. 157 of the Original Application (Annexure A-10) was issued by AIIMS for recruiting doctors for the same discipline on regular basis. The applicants applied for the same and upon their qualifying the examination, they were declared successful and extended offer of appointments by the Respondent (AIIMS) on 23.09.2005, page No. 159 to 182 of the O.A.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits, the pay of the applicants was protected while extending the regular benefits. The respondent (AIIMS) have not just once but on several occasions recommended the cause of the applicants, on 29.03.2010, page no. 186 (Annexure A-13) of the Original Application, on 08.06.2020 page no. 283 of the Original Application and finally on 18.06.2021, when the Board at AIIMS recommended the cause of the applicants page no. 309 of the Original Application.

3. With respect to their claim, the applicants preferred representations to respondent no. 2 (AIIMS) dated 20.11.2017, which had been forwarded by the AIIMS to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and vide impugned communication dated 10.12.2020 has turned down the request of the applicants. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants have preferred the instant Original Application seeking the following relief(s):-

“A. Quash / set aside the Impugned Order issued by the Respondent No. 1 vide letter No. V-16020/101/2020- INI-U dated 10.12.2020 communicated to the Applicants vide Memorandum bearing No. F. 20- 39/2018-ESTT-1 dated 22.12.2020 and 24.12.2020 by the Respondent No. 2, whereby the claim of the Applicants for granting them benefit of G.P. Fund and Old Pension Scheme prevalent prior to 01.01.2004 by counting of the past service rendered on ad-hoc bases has been rejected and consequently;

B. Issue orders)/directions) to the Respondents to reconsider and grant benefit of G.P. Fund and Old Pension Scheme prevalent prior to 01.01.2004 to the Applicants and all consequential benefits on the basis of the benefit granted to the faculty working at PGIMER, Chandigarh, pursuant to the order dated 13.03.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in O.A. No. 60/00105/2018 and also in terms of the various judicial pronouncements; and also the promise held out by the Institute body in terms of which the said ad-hoc service is being counted for voluntary retirement and seniority for allotment of housing.

C. Grant of any other/further reliefs)/orders) for which the

applicants may be found entitled to under the law in the facts of the present case as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.”

4. Learned Counsel for the applicants made the following submissions :

i. The issue at stake has been decided by the co-ordinate Bench at Chandigarh in O.A. No. 060/00105/2018 dated 13.03.2018. The ord