IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 28.02.2025 Suresh Kumar Batra ......Petitioner(s)

Versus Union of India and others .....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Brijesh Khosla, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Addl. Solicitor General of India, with Ms. Saigeeta Srivastava, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Ms. Neha Sharma, Sr. Panel Counel, for respondent No.3.

Ms. Meghna Malik, Sr. Panel Counsel, for respondent No.4.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of letter dated 04.07.2023 (Annexure P-17) and advice of Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) and Department of Legal Affairs (DOLA) dated 24.04.2023 (Annexure P-18) whereby his request for reckoning of service as Member Judicial for pension and other retiral benefits has been rejected. He is further seeking setting aside of order dated 12.10.2022 (Annexure P-13) whereby his pay has been provisionally fixed at Rs.1,76,550/- instead of Rs.2,25,000/- per month.

2. The petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate on 12.12.1994 with the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana. He in February' 2003 came to be selected as Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) through UPSC. He, through proper channel, applied for the post of Public Prosecutor (Group 'A') in CBI. He came to be selected as Public Prosecutor. He joined as Public Prosecutor, CBI on 21.03.2006. In 2010, he applied through proper channel for the post of Assistant Legal Adviser (ALA), Directorate of Enforcement (ED). He joined as ALA on 20.07.2010. He came to be promoted to the post of Deputy Legal Adviser (DLA) vide order dated 28.03.2018.

3. He through proper channel applied for the post of Judicial Member in Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). He came to be selected. ED relieved him w.e.f. 31.08.2022 to enable him to join as Judicial Member with CAT. He joined CAT at Jammu on 01.09.2022. In this way, he served for 19-1/2 years in CBI and ED. He, in terms of 2^nd proviso to Section 10 of The Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (in short '1985 Act') requested the respondent to count his service as Judicial Member for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits in his service with previous organizations. He, for the said purpose, filed option dated 18.10.2022. The respondent No.2 vide order dated 12.10.2022 provisionally fixed his pay in the pay scale of Rs.2,25,000/- per month. Assuming that he is getting pension of Rs.48,450/- per month from his previous organization, his salary was assessed as Rs.1,76,550/- (2,25,000-48,450). He submitted his option in terms of 2^nd proviso to Section 10 of the 1985 Act, thus, he did not claim pension from his previous organization. He submitted reminder dated 03.04.2023 requesting the respondent to count his service as Judicial Member in the service rendered with CBI and ED for the purpose of pension and other retiral dues. The respondent vide order dated 24.04.2023 rejected his claim. The respondent is relying on the advice of DOPT and DOLA. The DOPT is of the opinion that service rendered as DLA in ED is 'unorganized service', thus, cannot be reckoned for the purpose of pension and other benefits.

The petitioner would be governed by New Pension Scheme (NPS).

4. Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per impugned order as well as written statement, the service rendered as DLA with ED was 'unorganized service' and as per Rule 13 of Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 (in short 'TR 2021'), 'organized service' may be counted for pension and other retiral benefits. The petitioner's service as DLA/ALA was unorganized service.

There is no dichotomy between organized and unorganized service with Union of India. The petitioner had worked as Group-A Officer. The service of petitioner was governed