The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased in the interests of justice suspend the orders of the Honorable Tribunal dated 15.04.2O24 in Ofu012/0635 of 2018, and consequently consider my representation dated 23.11.2023 and pass appropriate orders. IA NO: Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of proceedings daled 27-08-2024 in E.File No.'t 5410 issued by the 3rd respondent, pending disposal of W.P.No. 20601 and pass appropriate orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: SR! SIVARATU SRINIVAS, REPRESENTING MS. K. SINDUJA SHANKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l and 2: SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO DEPUW SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4: SRI N. B. SUDARSHAN The Coun made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAT{GANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE THE CTIIIF JUSTICE SRI APAR.ESH KI'MAR SINGH AIID No. DATED: L1.L2.2O25 Between: Dr. Gyanmudra Ff\rL ... Petitioner The Union of India, Ministry of Rural Development, Rep. By its Joint Secretary, Room No.249, [I Floor, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi-110 114 & 3 others ... Respondents OTiTDTcIiE Heard Mr. Sivaraju Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. K.Sinduja Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent Nos.l and 2 and A t Mr. N.B.Sudarshart, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2

2. The impugned order dated L5.O4.2O24. passed 1n OAlO2l 10635/2018 rejected the prayer of the petitioner to be considered for GPF and Old Pension Scheme. The applicant was appointed on contract basis as Associate Professor on 03.05.2002 under Employment Notification dated

07.05.2000. Her contractual engagement was extended tilt

2012. Under a Regularisation Scheme framed under National Institute of Rural Development and Raj (NIRD) Rules, 20 I I for regular appointment of tlle academic stalT (appointed on contract basis), her services were regularised with effect from 04.05.2012. Her representation, thereafter, to grant the benefit of Old Pension Scheme stood rejected by the respondent Institute which led to the filing of the instant OA in 2018. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (hereinafter relerred to as 'the learned Tribunal) after considering the case of the parties and the decision rendered in Civil Appeal No.542 of 2023 refused to accept the contention made by the applicant by holding as under: "16. It is to be noted that once the applicants who have intervened before the Honble Supreme Court and considering the submissions made by both parties, according to the 3 respondents, there are 20 academic stalf who will benefit if the orders of this Tribunal and the Honble High Court are upheld. According to the employees (the applicants before us), six staff members will be benefitted and almost four persons were there before the Honble Supreme Court. It is not open to us that we can interwene with the observation of the Honble Supreme Court and pass our orders as contended by the applicants in view of the subsequent OM issued by the DOPT on O3.O3.2023 in the matter of serving employees and 2O. LO.2O23 in the matter of retired employees. It is to be noted that there is no ambiguity at all for the one who has been appointed prior to 2OO4, though the notification has been issued prior to O1.O1.2004 noti$ing the vacancies arose prior to O1.OI.2OO4 for regular appointments. However, they have been given an appointment after 01.01.2004. It is to be noted that in the matter in hand, these applicants were appointed on contractual basis prior to 01.01.20O4 wherein they themselves accepted certain conditions and there was an agreement between the employee and employer. It is also to be noted that, as a one-time measure, when ttre department has decided to regularize their services and issued orders with conditions, the applicants have accepted the said conditions and they have not challenged nor protested against the said condition. Therefore, it is not open to the applicants to rai'se the dispute at this length of time and the said OM, issued by the DOPT, will not support tJ:e applicants'ctraim. It is to be noted that once the issue has attained frnality before the Honble Supreme Court, though another matter has been sub judice before the Honble Supreme Court, the order which is available would prevail upon us. Hence, we are not accepting the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicants. 4

17. In view of the above, the O'As' are dismissed' No'order as to costs." 3 Assailing the impugned ord'er, the applicant is before us in writ jurisdiction- 4 We have heard learned counsel for the parties'

5. The contentions of the parties are hereunder dealt with one after the other.

6. The Hon,lrte Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in civil Appeal No.542 of 2023 dated 28.02.2023 dealing with the case of a similarly situated person holding tlle post of Associate Professor, appointed in August, 2OO2 under tl.e same Recruitment Employment Notification had held that the respondents would not get the benefit of regularisation of service from th: initiat date of engagement on contractual basis but ,rrrould be covered under the New Pension scheme' ThereasonsarereflectedatparagraphNos.l3to16ofthe judgment, which are quoted hereunder: "13. Bye-laws 48 and 49 provide for Pension-cum-Gratuity- cum-Family Pension Scheme (old scheme) and General ProvidentFundSchemerespectively.Sub-clause(aXl)of 5 clause 52 ctearly provides that a person appointed on a contract in accordance with Bye-law 2(21(al shall be eligible only to CPF which is provided in Bye-law 5O. Clause (a) (2) of Bye-law 32 provides that a person who was initially appointed on a contract basis as provided in the Bye-laws to a post (of academic staff) referred to in Bye-law 3(a) shall be eligible to be governed by cPF scheme for the period he holds oflice. clause (a)(a) of Bye-law 52 deals with a situation where a person appointed on a contract basis is appointed on a. regular basis. Only in such a case, an option is available to opt for the either otd pension scheme and GPF scheme or CPF scheme. There is a difference between appointing a contract employee on a regular basis and regularising the services of the contract employees. Moreover, when the Bye-laws were framed, the Regularisation Rules were not in existence. [n this case, we are dealing with the regularisation of the service of the contract employee in terms of the Regularisation Rules and not an appointment on a regular basis. Respohdent no.l has been regularised under Regularisation Rules. Therefore, Clause (a) (a) of Bye-taw 52 will not apply to respondent no.l whose employment has been regularised under the Regularisation Rules.

14. As noted earlier, Rule 6 clearly lays down that those who are regularised under the said Rules will not be entitled to benefit of any scheme other than the new pension scheme. Even when the exception carved out to Rule 6 is applicable, it enables the regularised employee to continue with either CPF or the old pension scheme as per the option already exercised by him. The Regularisation Rules under which the employment of respondent no.1 was regularised do not permit the regularised. emptoyee to change his or her option from CPF to the old pension scheme. Clause 52 of the Bye-laws cannot 6 override subsequent statutory Rures in the' form of the Recruitment Rules. The Recruitment Rules are made for giving effect to the Resorution of the Generar Executive council made on 18th Februar5r 2oog for the regularisation of the academic stalf appointed on a contract basis. After having taken benelits of the Regularisation Rules, the entitlement of respondent no.l will be governed by Rure 6 and not by clause (a) (+) of Bye-law 52 of the Bye-laws.

15. The Tribunal, as well as the High Court, have proceeded on an erroneous basis that after regularisation, respondent no- 1 was entitred to change his option from cpF to the ord pension scheme in terms of Bye-law 52. The High court erroneously observed that regularization would relate back to the date of initiar appointment made in the year 2oo2 when the order of regularisation dated 4th May 2,L2e4pressry states that the regularisation will operate from the date of t, e said order. The High court came to the conclusion that in view of the second proviso to sub-clause (a) (a) of Bye-law 52 0f the Bye-laws, on the failure to communicate the option in the prescribed manner it shail be deemed that the employee has opted for the old pension scheme and GpF. Sub_clause ({ (a) of Bye-law 52, as observed earlier, will not apply to a' employee whose service has been regularised under the Regularisation Rules. In the present case, in view of the provisions of the Regularisation Rules, there was no question of making available such an option. 16' In the circumstances, we find it diflicult to sustain the impugned judgments. It appears that respondent no. I has returned the bene{its received by him under the cpF scheme. As a consequence of setting aside the impugned order, we direct the appellant to pay the amount to which respondent no' I was entitled to under cpF. The amount shall be paid a 7 within a period of two months from today failing'which the same will.carry interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date on which the amount was returned to the appellant by respondent no. 1."

7. After this judgment was delivered, the Ministry of Personnel, Pubtic Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, Government of India issued an Office Memorandum (OM) dated 03.03.2023 on the following subject. The relevant decision of the Government of India at paragraph No.4 of the OM is also extracted hereunder: "4. Tlne matter has been examined in consultation with the Department of Financial Services, Department of Personnel & Training, Department of Expenditure and Department of Legal Affairs in the light of the various representations/references and decisions o[ the Courts in this regard. It has now been cleciclecl that. in all cases where the Central Government civil emplovee has been appointed asainst a post or vacancv which was aalvertised / notilied for recruitment/ appointrnent. Drior to the date of notification for National Penslon Svstem i'e' 22.12.2003 and is covered under the National Pension sYstem on ioil-tine sen/ice on or after O 1.01.2OO4. may be eiven a one- time option to be covered under the Ccs(Pensionl Rules. L972 (now 2O2tl. This option may be exercised by the concerned Government servants latest bv 31.O8.2O23.D 8 \

8. The case of the applicant has been now pleaded on the basis of the OM dated 03.03.2023. [t is contended that since the petitioner also was regularised post O1.OL.2OO4, her option to be brought under the Old Pension Scheme should have been allowed. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to another round of litigation pursued by the same applicant/respondent in Civil Appeal No.542 of 2023 through original application before learned Tribunal bearing No.OA/O2O|OO33/2O24 which u,ent up to the Honble Supreme Court. The learned Tribunal uide til.e order dated L5.O4.2O24 rejected the prayer of the said applicant raised after coming of the effect of the OM dated 03.03.2023 by holding that it is not open for him to take the shelter of the said OM since it is not applicable ir-r the case of the applicant. The applicant was appointed prior to the cut-off date O1.OL.2OO4 whereas the OM clated 03.03.2023 deaJt with the case of those who were appointed after 01.01.2004 due to delay in the recruitment process. The matter travelled to this Court in W.P.No.31762 of 2024. A Coordinate Bench of this Court uide order dated 13.1 1 .2024 approved the decision of the learned Tribunal and \,tent on to hold as under: 9 "6. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents had contended that the petitioner was appointed in pursuance of the notification issued on O2.O7.2OO1, but he was appointed on22.07.2OO2. Therefore, the Office Memorandum dated O3.O3.2O23 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner and the Oflice Mernorandum dated O3.O3.2O24 is applicable to such of those persons who were appointed in pursuance to the notification which was issued prior to 22.L2.2O23 but appointed after O1.Ol.2OO4. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the OA. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition and the'same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that no doubt, the petitioner was appointed in pursuance of tl:e notification dated 02.06.2OO I as Associate Professor. Therefore, the Office Memorandums dated O3.O3.2O23 and 2O.LO.2O23 have no application to the case of the petitioner and the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the OA. Merely on the ground that the services of the petitioner were regularized on 04.05.2OL2 that does not mean that his case is covered by Oflice Memorandums referred to supra. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by tl'.e Tribunal. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs."

9. The Apex Court dismissed the special leave petition preferred by the said applicant bearing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.29575 of 2025 by order dated O}.O7.2O25 IO with the only observation that the petitioner will be entitled to the New Pension Scheme which must be hnalised and released as expeditiously as possible. The case of the applicant Dr. Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma is identical on facts to the case ofthe present petitioner.

10. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the provisions of the Scheme which deemed her regularisation to have taken effect' from the date of. her initial appointment on contractual basis has not been considered in the judgments rendered in the second round of litigation by Dr. Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma.

11. However, it is dillicult to agree with the aforesaid proposition since the issue of relating back of the regularisation to the effective date oi initial appointment on contractual basi's was squarely deatt with in the case of the same Dr. Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma and other in the previous round of challenge by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.542 of 2023 wherein it was categorically held that those who are regularised under the said Rules will not be entitled l1 to the benefit of any scheme other than the benefit of New Pension scheme. Issue is, therefore, no ronger res integra. L2. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the reasons recorded, we do not find any reason to take a different view of the matter as the s€une issue has attained Iinality in the case of an identically situated employee in the aforesaid cases decided up to the Supreme court. Therefore, we do not find any error in the impugned order.

13. The instant writ Petition is, accordingly, disrnissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, SD/-M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR .t //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to Sri K. Sinduja Shankar, Advocate [OPUCI 2. One CC to Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri N.B. Sudarshan , Advocate[OPUC 4. Two CD Copies TJ BS \q. HIGH COURT DATED i1111212025 E,i WP.No.20601 of 2024 r{E1 S o 1 s JrN ?02[ t a DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t.- ."fl'o {1. til i-li _-..\s.