Delhi High Court on Entitlement to Old Pension Scheme for CSIR Casual Workers.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order directing the grant of benefits under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) to certain employees. The Court held that respondents, who had worked as casual workers much before the introduction of the New Pension Scheme (NPS) on 1 January 2004 but were regularized later under directions of courts, were entitled to OPS coverage. The Court reasoned that the absorption of these employees was in continuation of Supreme Court directions issued long before the NPS and that administrative delays by CSIR could not deprive them of pensionary benefits. The plea of CSIR relying on later Office Memorandums (O.M.s) and advertisement dates was rejected as immaterial to the respondents’ pre-NPS engagement history.

Background:

• The petition was filed by CSIR–National Physical Research Laboratory challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 07.12.2022 in O.A. No. 3979/2017.

• The Tribunal had directed CSIR to extend OPS benefits to respondents, following its earlier order in Smt. Shakuntla v. Union of India.

• CSIR contended that while most respondents were already granted OPS, three (Nos. 2, 21 & 22) were ineligible since their absorption advertisement was issued on 17.12.2007—after the NPS came into force.

• It was argued that though they were casual workers in the 1980s, their services were terminated in 1990 and later re-engaged only after 2006, hence falling under NPS.

• CSIR also relied on O.M. No. 57/05/2021-P&PW(B) dated 03.03.2023, asserting that advertisements issued after 22.12.2003 precluded OPS coverage.

• The respondents cited the Satbir Singh ruling (2013), upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court, asserting entitlement to OPS as their engagement stemmed from Supreme Court directions issued in Kamlesh Kapoor v. Union of India (1988).

Court’s Observations:

• Supreme Court’s Directions Preceded NPS:

The Court emphasized that the Supreme Court’s 1988 order in Kamlesh Kapoor directing absorption of casual workers in CSIR existed well before NPS implementation. The respondents’ absorption was thus a continuation of those directions, not a fresh appointment.

• Administrative Delay Cannot Prejudice Employees:

The delay in implementing the absorption scheme and subsequent re-engagements between 2006–2008 could not be held against the respondents. The Court held that employees should not suffer due to CSIR’s own inaction.

• O.M. and Advertisement Dates Irrelevant:

The Court rejected CSIR’s reliance on the 2007 advertisement and subsequent O.M.s, clarifying that administrative formalities post-2004 cannot defeat pre-existing entitlements rooted in earlier judicial mandates.

• Parity Principle:

Notably, other similarly situated employees regularized later (e.g., Respondent No. 20) had already been granted OPS benefits. Denying the same to Respondents 2, 21 & 22 would violate parity and fairness.

• Binding Precedents:

The Court reaffirmed that Satbir Singh v. CSIR (2013 CAT), upheld by the Delhi High Court (2014) and Supreme Court (2015), had conclusively settled that employees engaged prior to NPS introduction are entitled to OPS irrespective of later regularization dates.

Decision:

• The Delhi High Court dismissed CSIR’s petition, holding that Respondents 2, 21, and 22 were entitled to coverage under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS).

• The Court directed CSIR to extend OPS benefits to them in line with earlier implementation for other respondents.

• The judgment reaffirmed that judicially mandated absorption schemes cannot be overridden by subsequent administrative circulars or NPS rules.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Old Pension Scheme (CCS Pension Rules, 1972) – Applicability to employees engaged before 01.01.2004.

• New Pension Scheme (NPS) – Introduced w.e.f. 01.01.2004 for new entrants to government service.

• Office Memorandums (O.M.s) dated 21.08.2008, 02.09.2008, 22.10.2008 & 03.03.2023 – Government instructions on pension eligibility.

• Article 226, Constitution of India – High Court’s power of judicial review.

• Judgments Cited:

1. Kamlesh Kapoor v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 631/1988 (SC, 1988)
2. Satbir Singh v. CSIR (CAT, 2013), upheld by Delhi HC (2014) and SC (2015)
3. Union of India v. Giriraj Sharma, SLP (C) No. 13942/2009 (SC, 2015)

Citation: 2025:DHC:73292

Case: CSIR–National Physical Research Laboratory v. Krishan Pal & Ors.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Justice Navin Chawla & Justice Madhu Jain

Date of Decision: 12 November 2025