CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH Original Application No.060/296/2021 Pronounced on: 19.02.2026 Reserved on: 30.01.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)

Kewal Singh s/o Sh. Jaswant Singh, aged 56 years, working as Motor Lorry Driver (Regular) in the office of Executive Engineer (Civil), Central Public Works Department, 17-B, BRS Nagar, Ludhiana. (Group-C)

... Applicant By Advocate: Mr. H.S. Saini for Mr. Rsihav Sharma Versus

1. Union of India through the Secretary, M/o Urban Development, Govt. of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.

2. Directorate General of Works, Central Public Works Department (CPWD), Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi-110011.

3. Executive Engineer (Civil), Central Public Works Department, 17-B, BRS Digitally signed Nagar, Ludhiana-141001.

... .Respondents By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC

O R D E R

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-

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

(i) The Annexure A-1 dated 28.01.2020 be quashed and set aside; that it be declared that the applicant is entitled to switch over to Old Pension Scheme/GPF as in the case of Baldev Singh and others;

(ii) The respondents be directed to switch over the applicant to the provisions of Old Pension Scheme (CCS Pension Rules, 1972) and GPF Rules by extending him the benefit of the judgments rendered by this Tribunal in the cases of Satish Kumar and Baldev Singh; that it be declared that the applicant is entitled to all the benefits under the Old Pension Scheme i.e. CCS (Pension)

Rules, 1972;

(iii) The action of the respondents in applying the New Pension Scheme be declared illegal, arbitrary and against law;

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant was initially appointed as Motor Lorry Driver on muster roll/work-charge basis on 01.07.1988 with the respondents and his services were later regularized vide order dated 14.08.2008, which was subsequently amended through letters dated 26.07.2013 and 12.08.2013, regularizing his services with effect from 11.12.2006. After regularization, deductions under the Contributory Pension Fund/New Pension Scheme were started in terms of DoPT O.M. dated 26.04.2004. The applicant contends that since his initial appointment was in the year 1988, therefore, he ought to have Digitally signed been governed by CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and entitled to subscribe to GPF under the Old Pension Scheme, but he was not so switched over. He further states that similarly situated employees including Sh. Baldev Singh and others and Sh. Satish Kumar and others had approached this Tribunal through OAs 1047/2014 and 1048/2014 respectively, which were allowed vide orders dated 26.05.2015 and 02.07.2015 respectively (Annexures A-7 and A-8), directing coverage under the Old Pension Scheme by counting service from initial appointment, and that such orders were implemented by the respondents only after contempt proceedings, vide order dated 07.10.2016 (Annexure A-9). The applicant submitted representations dated 27.10.2017, 30.11.2017 and 17.03.2018 (Annexure A-2 colly) seeking similar treatment, but no relief was granted. Consequently, he filed OA No. 958 of 2018 which was disposed of in limine vide order dated 14.08.2018 (Annexue A-10), after which the respondents passed the impugned order dated 28.01.2020 (Annexure A-1) rejecting his claim on the ground that he had not been granted temporary status and hence, as per DoPT instructions dated 26.02.2016 and 28.07.2016, could not be switched to the Old Pension Scheme. The applicant asserts that employees similarly placed, including drivers, who had not been granted temporary status, were nonetheless granted the benefit pursuant to judicial orders, and therefore denial of the same benefit to him amounts to discrimination.

3. The applicant contends that once he was appointed against a sanc