Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench: New Delhi O.A. No.1065/2024 This the 12th day of February, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)

Bhuwal, aged 60 years, S/o R.L. Singh, Retired as Track Maintainer From the office of SSE/P.WAY Northern Railway, Nizamuddin, R/o H. No. 8, Gali No. B/1, Siddharth Vihar, Vijay Nagar, Gaziabad -

201009 …Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)

Versus

1. Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi – 01

2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Delhi Division, State Entry Road, New Delhi -06

3. The Divisional Personnel Officer, DRM’s Office, Delhi Division, State Entry Road, New Delhi - 06 …Respondents (By Advocates : Mr. Sanjeev Yadav)

ORDER (ORAL)

By Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:– “(i) That the Honb’le Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 27.10.2023 and order dated 22.10.2020 (Annex. A/1& A/2) declaring to the effect that the same are illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequentially pass an order directing the respondents to place the applicant in old pension scheme under Rly. Servant (Pension) Rules, 1993 by taking into account the initial date of appointment as on 15.7.1981 after counting 50% of casual service of the applicant with all the consequential benefits as done in the case of similarly situated persons.

(ii) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to consider and to regularize the services of the applicant from 1998 with all consequential benefits and pass an order of placing the applicant in old pension scheme.

(iii) any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant along with the costs of litigation.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:

2.1 The applicant was initially engaged as a Casual Labour under the Inspector of Works, Northern Railway, on 15.07.1981. However, he was disengaged from service w.e.f. 14.12.1981 on account of operational requirements.

2.2 Aggrieved by his disengagement, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 420/2003 seeking re-engagement in Railway service. In compliance with the directions passed in CP No. 366/2004 arising out of the said O.A., and pursuant to order dated 22.08.2003, the respondents offered appointment to the applicant as Substitute Gangman vide letter dated 08.09.2005 after obtaining approval from the competent authority.

2.3 The applicant underwent the requisite Physical Efficiency Test on 26.07.2005 and was declared medically fit in medical category AYE-TWO and below vide Medical Memo dated 29.07.2005. Thereafter, he was appointed as Substitute Gangman w.e.f. 13.09.2005 in the pay scale of Rs. 2610–3540 with initial pay fixed at Rs. 2610/-. He was subsequently screened on 04.08.2006.

2.4 It is further submitted that upon appointment, the applicant was covered under the New Pension Scheme (NPS). He filled the requisite NPS forms at the time of appointment and continued to contribute towards NPS throughout his service. Upon superannuation, he received settlement dues under the NPS scheme including his subscription amount.

2.5 The applicant thereafter submitted a request dated 01.06.2020 through the Single Window system seeking consideration under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 in place of the National Pension Scheme in terms of RBE No. 28/2020 dated 03.03.2020. The said request was considered and disposed of by the respondents vide letter dated

23.10.2020.

2.6 The respondents have stated that the Old Pension Scheme is applicable only to those Government employees whose posts were notified/approved by the competent authority before 22.12.2003 and that