Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 322
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
Sanjeev Mathur – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
M.A. No.2231/2022|OA No.2131/2022|OA No.839/1993|MP No.1193/1993|OA No.2075/1993|OA No.691/2019|OA No.561/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Kumud Lata, Mr. Sidharth Narayan Das, Ms. Pooja Rathore
For the Respondents: Ms. Vertika Sharma, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma
Casual/contractual service prior to regularization does not qualify as temporary service under CCS Pension Rules 13/14 and cannot be counted for pensionary benefits absent specific policy.
Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rules 3(1)(q), 13, 14, 17 - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Casual/contractual service prior to regularization - Qualifying service for pension commences from date of taking charge of substantive, officiating or temporary post followed by substantive appointment without interruption - Casual/contractual service not qualifying as temporary or officiating service - No entitlement to count prior casual service for pensionary benefits, provident fund, gratuity or higher pay absent specific scheme or policy - Reservation roster and vacancy availability govern regularization under 1992 scheme - Parity claim rejected where comparators benefited from reservation categories (Paras 9-10, 19-31)
(B) Constitutional Law - Articles 14, 16 - Discrimination - No violation where regularization follows policy applying reservation and seniority from date of regularization, not initial casual engagement - CGHS benefits extended to new pension scheme employees rendering issue infructuous (Paras 8, 20)
Facts of the case:
Applicants worked as casual floor assistants, eligible under 1992 regularization scheme but regularized in 2015 - Claimed higher pay, arrears, old pension scheme counting from initial engagement, CGHS benefits, parity with earlier regularized persons - Respondents opposed citing delay, closure of scheme, no counting of casual service, reservation policy application.
Findings of Court:
Casual service not qualifying under pension rules - No policy to count prior service - Reservation justified differential treatment - Representations unentitled to relief - OA dismissed.
Issues: Whether prior casual service counts as qualifying for pension from initial engagement; entitlement to parity with earlier regularized employees; applicability of old pension and CGHS despite new scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: Qualifying service under Rule 13 limited to substantive/officiating/temporary posts, excluding casual/contractual unless followed uninterrupted by substantive appointment - No discrimination in policy-based regularization per reservation roster - Supreme Court precedent in identical matter binding, rejecting counting of casual service (Paras 30-32).
Result: OA dismissed. No costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties and reliefs sought identified. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. applicants claim parity with earlier regularized floor assistants. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. demand old pension counting from initial casual engagement. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. respondents defend delay, seniority from regularization. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. rejoinder emphasizes initial engagement for seniority. (Para 17) |
| 6. court summarizes contentions; cghs issue infructuous. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. regularization scheme follows reservation roster. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. applicants' cited judgments held distinguishable. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 9. casual service not qualifying under ccs pension rules. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 10. oa dismissed following magi h. desai precedent. (Para 32 , 33) |
O R D E R
MA No.2231/2022 This Application has been filed by the applicants seeking permission of this Tribunal to join together in a single Application.
2. For the reasons mentioned therein, the MA is allowed.
OA No.2131/2022
3. The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s) :-
“(i) To direct the respondents to grant higher pay and allowance to the applicants along with all consequential benefits at par with the Floor Assistants regularized prior to the applicants in accordance with 1992 and 1994 scheme,
(ii) To direct the respondent for counting the Qualifying Service i.e., from the date of their initial booking as per the Rule '13' & '17' of CCS Rules for grant of Old Pension Scheme to the Applicants and Medical Benefits as per CGHS scheme (post retirement),
(iii) To direct the Respondent for the payment of arrears of pay along with all the Consequential Benefits in accordance with 1992 & 1994 Scheme such as Provident Fund, Gratuity and Other Allowances etc. and give similar treatment to the applicant as given to similarly placed persons, and
(iv) To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case.”
4. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicants, who are five in number, became eligible for empanelment and further for regularization in the category of Floor Assistant by Central Production Centre (CPC) vide Regularization Scheme No.2(3) 86- SI dated 09.06.1992, which was issued by the respondent No.2. They worked in CPC as casual Floor Assistant and were regularised in the month of July, 2015. They are not given the Grade Pay of Rs.2800/-, however, certain ineligible persons and the ones who stood much below the name of some of the applicants were granted the benefits. Aggrieved, the applicant No.1&3 filed OA No.839/1993 along with MP No.1193/1993 titled as Sanjeev Mathur & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, in which interim order dated 29.04.1993 was passed directing the respondents to empanel the applicants, if they are entitled. Subsequently, applicant No.2 also filed OA No.2075/1993.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that certain clarifications regarding regularization of casual artists in Doordarshan bearing No.4(1)/94-S.1 against the doubts raised was issued on 07.12.1994, per guidelines of the scheme of regularization, the inter- se-seniority of casual artists shall be fixed on the basis of their date of first engagement. If two or more casuals happened to be engaged on same day, their seniority shall be determined on the basis of their dates of birth. Hence the older person will get precedence over other”.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that respondents have regularized the services of all the similarly placed persons, namely, Siya Ram Prasad (Sl. No.22), Anand Prasad Arya (Sl. No.30), Suraj Mal (Sl. No.28), Vikas Guwalani (Sl. No.15) and Rajendra Ram (Sl. No.18), however, to the exclusion of the instant applicants inspite of their requests.
7. He further submitted that in identical OA(s), filed before differ
