(Reserved on 13.10.2026)

ORDER

Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-

“i. To issue a suitable order/direction the respondents department to release the pension of the applicant treating him regular employee of the department.

i a. Issue an order or direction in the suitable nature quashing the order impugned dated 17.10.2013 passed by the respondent no.2 (Annexure no.6 of the OA)

ii. To issue a suitable order/direction direct the respondents to pay the arrears of the pension alongwith market rate of interest within a stipulated period of time.

iii. To issue any order or direction, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv. To award the cost of the application to the applicant.”

Brief facts of this case are that the applicant was engaged as mobile booking clerk along with others from 01.03.1986 under the respondents but was removed after 31.03.1986 and again re-engaged after the direction of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal passed on 21.01.1997 in O.A./77/1993 filed by the applicant which was decided as clubbed with other cases of similarly situated employees with O.A./2422/1992 (Shri Rajesh Kumar vs. Union of India and others) being the leading case. Thereafter, on completion of 120 days, temporary status was also given to the applicant vide letter dated 06/08.07.1998. The respondents had conducted a screening test of those employees, who were re-engaged as booking clerks, on 14.03.2002 and 15.03.2002 in which the applicant remained absent. Thereafter, he approached the Principal Bench of this Tribunal through O.A./319/2012 seeking relief therein to direct the respondents to conduct the screening test of the applicant at par with the other colleagues. O.A./319/2012 was decided on 10.02.2012 with a direction to the respondents to ascertain the facts and circumstances of the case and take a final decision in the matter and pass appropriate orders. The respondents then conducted a screening test and passed the order dated 17.10.2013 in which the Screening Committee found the applicant as suitable for Commercial Clerk against the DR Quota but because he did not fulfill the criteria of upper age limit, he was not considered for regularisation. The applicant superannuated from services on 31.03.2022 but no pensionary benefit has been granted to the applicant. Aggrieved, the applicant filed the present O.A.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant superannuated from services on 31.03.2022, after completing more than 38 years of qualifying service. The respondents department has already deducted the GPF subscription from the salary of the applicant throughout his service career, but at the time of his retirement they illegally denied release of pension, without having any justification for the same. He argued that at the time of absorption and regularization all the colleague employees shown in the screening test result dated 25.07.2002 had crossed their age of 25 years, meaning thereby if, regularization/absorption of other similarly situated colleague employees was made, after crossing the maximum age limit of 25 years, then why the absorption of the applicant is being denied. The respondents can not be permitted to adopt different yardsticks at the time of absorption and regularization of those similarly situated employees of the department, for which the respondents did not explain the reason in the order dated 17.10.2013. After retirement, when the applicant sought information about his pension through RTI Act, he got the reply dated 26.04.2022 under rule 14 to 32 of the Pension Rules, 1993 which, he contendents, are not applicable upon the applicant because he was neither casual labour nor daily wager of the department, but was working as Group-C employee against the sanctioned post of Mobile Bookin