it2025_00366 — When an individual is taken on deputation from a date anterior to the date of introduction of NPS and later absorbed by the borrowing department posterior to the date of coming into force of NPS, as per DoP&T OM, dated 3-3-2023 coupled with the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 18908 of 2022, he is entitled to be governed by the old pension rules

IT Rules

When an individual is taken on deputation from a date anterior to the date of introduction of NPS and later absorbed by the borrowing department posterior to the date of coming into force of NPS, as per DoP&T OM, dated 3-3-2023 coupled with the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 18908 of 2022, he is entitled to be governed by the old pension rules — The chunk provides details about the applicant's employment history, GPF account allotment, permanent absorption in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, non-payment of pension despite submission of pen... — Facts: The Applicant was initially appointed as Personal Assistant in the year 1994 in the Prag Bosimi Synthetics Limited (PBSL), a Joint Sector Undertaking. In response to an advertisement by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Personal Assistant on deputation basis, the Applicant submitted his application through PBSL and subsequently, he was selected for appointment to the post of Private Secretary on deputation and the Applicant joined the said post on 4-9-2002. On 17-7-2003, new GPF Account No. DLH-LAW-LA-2623 was allotted to the Applicant. Subsequently, Applicant was permanently absorbed in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati as Private Secretary with effect from 4-9-2005. His GPF amount was regularly deducted till his retirement on superannuation till 30-4-2017. However, prior to his retirement, Applicant submitted his pension papers which were duly forwarded. However, he was not paid his pension. Ultimately, he approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 374 of 2019, which was disposed of vide Order, dated 4-5-2022 with a direction to the Respondents to consider the case of the Applicant within a period of six weeks. In compliance to the said direction/Order, the impugned Order, dated 5-9-2022 rejecting the case of the Applicant was issued by the Respondents. Being aggrieved with, the Applicant has filed the instant petition. Same issue was dealt with by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, in O.A. No. 800 of 2016, dated 2-9-2022 whereby the Respondents were directed to treat the qualifying service of the Applicant for the purpose of pension from the date of his deputation and to the date of retirement and to make all retiral benefits. However, against the said Order, the Respondents had approached before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in Civil Writ Petition No. 18908 of 2022 which was dismissed vide Order, dated 6-4-2023 by not only affirming the Order of CAT, Jaipur Bench, dated 2-9-2022 but also imposing a cost of &#X20B9; 1,00,000 to the petitioners/Respondents therein. Since the instant Applicant is similarly circumstanced with the aforesaid case of Jaipur Bench as well as cover by the DoP&T OM, dated 3-3-2023, the Applicant prayed for a direction upon the Respondents to grant pension and pensionary benefits by extending the benefits of the aforesaid judgment of CAT, Jaipur Bench as well as OM, dated 3-3-2023. The counsel for the Applicant also in support of his contention has placed following Orders / Judgment:- (1) Order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 31-10-2023; whereby benefits of judgment of CAT, Jaipur Bench as well as OM, dated 3-3-2023 has been granted to some employees and the Applicant is languishing. (2) Order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 6-1-2015; and (3) Order, dated 8-11-2023 passed by the CAT, Lucknow Bench in O.A. No. 332/00359 of 2021. According to the Respondents, the Applicant had initially joined Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on deputation basis on 4-9-2022 for the period of 3 years and he was absorbed on regular basis on 4-9-2005 after the expiry of deputation period of 3 years. Hence, his pension would reckon from the date of his absorption i.e. with effect from 4-9-2005. Further, a person working on deputation retains lien in his parent department and enters in regular service of borrowing department only when he is absorbed under the Rules. Such employee becomes regular employee from the date of absorption and is amenable to the Rules in force on the date of absorption only and not to the past rules. In the instant case, when the Applicant was taken in the Respondent department, Old Pension Scheme was in force. The Respondents retained his lien with the previous employer i.e. Prag Bosimi Synthetics Limited, a Joint Sector undertaking and his statutory deductions were transferred to the Respondents. Thus, the Respondents were required to make necessary deductions of the persons in deputation and transfer the same when the employee is reverted to parent department and therefore, the Respondents deducted GPF amount from the Applicant as per the Rules so that the same may be transferred to his parent department upon his reversion. However, the Applicant was absorbed in the Respondent department on 4-9-2005 and at that relevant time, National Pension Scheme had come into force. The Applicant was therefore, not at all eligible for the Old Pension Scheme since on the date of his entry in the regular service, same was not in force.

IT Rules

When an individual is taken on deputation from a date anterior to the date of introduction of NPS and later absorbed by the borrowing department posterior to the date of coming into force of NPS, as per DoP&T OM, dated 3-3-2023 coupled with the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 18908 of 2022, he is entitled to be governed by the old pension rules — The chunk provides details about the applicant's employment history, GPF account allotment, permanent absorption in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, non-payment of pension despite submission of pen... — Facts: The Applicant was initially appointed as Personal Assistant in the year 1994 in the Prag Bosimi Synthetics Limited (PBSL), a Joint Sector Undertaking. In response to an advertisement by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Personal Assistant on deputation basis, the Applicant submitted his application through PBSL and subsequently, he was selected for appointment to the post of Private Secretary on deputation and the Applicant joined the said post on 4-9-2002. On 17-7-2003, new GPF Account No. DLH-LAW-LA-2623 was allotted to the Applicant. Subsequently, Applicant was permanently absorbed in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati as Private Secretary with effect from 4-9-2005. His GPF amount was regularly deducted till his retirement on superannuation till 30-4-2017. However, prior to his retirement, Applicant submitted his pension papers which were duly forwarded. However, he was not paid his pension. Ultimately, he approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 374 of 2019, which was disposed of vide Order, dated 4-5-2022 with a direction to the Respondents to consider the case of the Applicant within a period of six weeks. In compliance to the said direction/Order, the impugned Order, dated 5-9-2022 rejecting the case of the Applicant was issued by the Respondents. Being aggrieved with, the Applicant has filed the instant petition. Same issue was dealt with by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, in O.A. No. 800 of 2016, dated 2-9-2022 whereby the Respondents were directed to treat the qualifying service of the Applicant for the purpose of pension from the date of his deputation and to the date of retirement and to make all retiral benefits. However, against the said Order, the Respondents had approached before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in Civil Writ Petition No. 18908 of 2022 which was dismissed vide Order, dated 6-4-2023 by not only affirming the Order of CAT, Jaipur Bench, dated 2-9-2022 but also imposing a cost of &#X20B9; 1,00,000 to the petitioners/Respondents therein. Since the instant Applicant is similarly circumstanced with the aforesaid case of Jaipur Bench as well as cover by the DoP&T OM, dated 3-3-2023, the Applicant prayed for a direction upon the Respondents to grant pension and pensionary benefits by extending the benefits of the aforesaid judgment of CAT, Jaipur Bench as well as OM, dated 3-3-2023. The counsel for the Applicant also in support of his contention has placed following Orders / Judgment:- (1) Order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 31-10-2023; whereby benefits of judgment of CAT, Jaipur Bench as well as OM, dated 3-3-2023 has been granted to some employees and the Applicant is languishing. (2) Order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 6-1-2015; and (3) Order, dated 8-11-2023 passed by the CAT, Lucknow Bench in O.A. No. 332/00359 of 2021. According to the Respondents, the Applicant had initially joined Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on deputation basis on 4-9-2022 for the period of 3 years and he was absorbed on regular basis on 4-9-2005 after the expiry of deputation period of 3 years. Hence, his pension would reckon from the date of his absorption i.e. with effect from 4-9-2005. Further, a person working on deputation retains lien in his parent department and enters in regular service of borrowing department only when he is absorbed under the Rules. Such employee becomes regular employee from the date of absorption and is amenable to the Rules in force on the date of absorption only and not to the past rules. In the instant case, when the Applicant was taken in the Respondent department, Old Pension Scheme was in force. The Respondents retained his lien with the previous employer i.e. Prag Bosimi Synthetics Limited, a Joint Sector undertaking and his statutory deductions were transferred to the Respondents. Thus, the Respondents were required to make necessary deductions of the persons in deputation and transfer the same when the employee is reverted to parent department and therefore, the Respondents deducted GPF amount from the Applicant as per the Rules so that the same may be transferred to his parent department upon his reversion. However, the Applicant was absorbed in the Respondent department on 4-9-2005 and at that relevant time, National Pension Scheme had come into force. The Applicant was therefore, not at all eligible for the Old Pension Scheme since on the date of his entry in the regular service, same was not in force.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text