Candidates whose selection processes were completed prior to 1 January 2004 are entitled to benefits under the Old Pension Scheme, regardless of their appointment dates due to administrative delays.

ORDER

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-

1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-

(i) The impugned order dated 20.10.2021 whereby the respondent No. 3 has rejected the claim of the applicant for grant of pension benefits under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in place of National Pension System (A-12) may please be quashed being totally illegal, arbitrary, non-speaking, cryptic and in total contravention to the instructions issued time to time by Government of India Department of Pension and Pensioner's Welfare.

(ii) The respondents be directed to allow the applicant to exercise his option for General Provident Fund benefits in accordance with CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Government of India Department of Pension and PW letter No. 57/04/2019- P&PW (B) dated 17.02.2020 (Annexure A-6).

(iii) The respondents be directed to consider the case of the applicant in the light of the instructions/office memorandum dated 17.02.2020 for coverage under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 in place of National Pension System, whose selection for appointment was finalized before 01.01.2004 but who joined the Government Service on or after 01.01.2004.

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that the respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 20.04.2001 had issued an advertisement for appointment to the posts of Washerman, Safaiwala, Barber and LDC. The requisitions for the said posts were forwarded to the local employment exchange, Bathinda and published in a local newspaper on 05.10.2001. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the applicant applied for the post of Barber and appeared in the interview held on 16.10.2001. Thereafter, vide letter dated 18.10.2001, the applicant was directed to report to the hospital for medical examination at the Civil Hospital, Bathinda. Further, vide letter dated 20.10.2001, the respondent No. 4 addressed a communication to the Superintendent of Police, Bathinda for verification of the applicant’s antecedents.

3. It has been submitted that despite the medical and police verification being completed, the applicant was not issued an appointment letter, though he had been duly selected by the selection board. The applicant thereafter submitted a representation and served a legal notice dated 21.05.2002. In response to the said notice, the respondents, vide letter dated 26.06.2002, informed that although the applicant’s name had been recommended by the selection board for appointment as Barber. However, the higher authorities had directed that one K. Rama Rao, who was already in the reserve panel under SRD 89-90, be appointed, and therefore, the proceedings were returned.

4. Aggrieved by this action and decision, the applicant filed Original Application No. 67/PB/2003, seeking appointment to the post of Barber on the ground that once the post had been advertised and a fresh selection process conducted, the respondents could not appoint a person from an earlier panel. This Tribunal, after hearing the parties, allowed the OA vide order dated 22.01.2004 and quashed the appointment of K. Rama Rao, and directed the respondents to offer the post of Barber to the applicant, if found suitable as per rules within three months. In compliance with the Tribunal’s order, the applicant was offered appointment as Barber at the Military Hospital, Bathinda vide letter dated 23.04.2004 and joined his duties on 01.05.2004. Since then, the applicant has been continuously working in the said hospital with dedication.

5. The applicant has stated that subsequen