Prahallad Chandra Sahoo vs Union Of India & Ors.

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

After hearing the Ld. Counsel for both sides and upon perusal of record, it reveals that the applicant, along with others, approached this Bench earlier in OA No. 441/1992 with prayer to direct the respondents “to consider their cases for regularization ignoring the age bar, if any, with further prayer to direct them not to make any recruitment from open market till their regularization” since the applicant has been working in the Doordarshan Kendra from 1988. The said OA was disposed of vide common order dated 16.11.1993 with direction to the respondents to prepare the seniority list Kendrawise and as and when vacancy arises in future they shall be appointed according to their place and position in the said list. Relaxation of upper age limit may sympathetically be considered by the authorities while regularizing them. The said order attained its finality by the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 21.01.2009. Thereafter, the applicant again approached this Tribunal in OA No. 187/2006 seeking direction to the respondents to regularize his services. The same was disposed of vide order dated 01.07.2009 with direction to the respondents to explore the possibilities of getting regular posts of Floor Assistant sanctioned against which the applicant and other similarly situated persons could be accommodated in accordance with the Scheme of regularization since the present applicant was declared eligible casual Floor Assistant since 1995. Fact remains that his services were regularized in the post of Floor Assistant vide order dated 26.06.2015 and, accordingly, he joined as a regular Floor Assistant on 29.06.2015. He completed the period of probation on 13.10.2017 after which he filed this OA praying for his regularization retrospectively w.e.f. 02.09.1992 and to direct the respondents to bring him under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Respondents opposed this OA both on merit as also on the ground of hit by the principle of constructive res judicata.

We are in complete agreement with the respondents that the prayer for regularization having attained its finality vide order dated 16.11.1993 in OA No. 441/1992 and dated 01.07.2009 in OA No. 187/2006, the prayer made in this OA for his regularization w.e.f. 02.09.1992 is hit by the principle of res judicata and, therefore, this Bench is not inclined to grant the said prayer of the applicant. However, we find that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer of the applicant to bring him under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 instead of NPS, he having found eligible for regularization in the year 1995, gains support from the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Punjab School Education Board vs Satnam Singh in Civil Appeal No. 6865 of 2025 dated 9^th September, 2026 wherein it has been held that since the entry of the employees were prior to 01.01.2004 on casual/daily wage/adhoc basis, they are entitled to get the benefits as per the provision in vogue prior to 01.01.2004. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that although the applicant was regularized vide order dated 26.06.2015, he was in casual engagement from 1988 and was also found eligible to be regularized in 1995, which was much prior to 01.01.2004, i.e. the date when CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 was substituted by the National Pension System.

On a cumulative assessment of the material on record, therefore, we are satisfied that by applying the ratio of the decision in the case of Satnam Singh (supra) the applicant is entitled to be brought into the CCS (Pension) Rules. 1972 and subsequent amendment made thereto instead of NPS. The respondents shall take step to the above effect in respect of the applicant and issue the consequential order within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

In the result, this OA stands allowed in part making the costs easy. Pending MA, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.