Council of Scientific and Industrial Research New Delhi Thru. Its Dairecto General and 5 Others v. Sri Ram Prakash and 16 Others

Allahabad HC3 Nov 2025WRIA/12755/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CSIR challenged CAT orders extending temporary status and 1995 Casual Workers Absorption Scheme benefits to absorbed project workers denied the old pension scheme. The High Court found prima facie merit, noting unaddressed review issues, listed the matter for 27.11.2025 with counter affidavit due, and stayed pending Tribunal contempt proceedings until then.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition proceedings before CAT Lucknow stayed till next listing date; matter to be relisted on 27.11.2025.

Council of Scientific and Industrial… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 12755 of 2025

¶3

Council Of Scientific And Industrial Research New Delhi Thru. Its Dairecto General And 5 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sri Ram Prakash And 16 Others

¶7

			.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Abhinav Trivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: A.S.G.I., Deepak Singh	Kumar	Srivastava, Raj

¶8

Court No. - 2

¶9

HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Raj Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶11

This petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following main prayers:

¶12

" (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, in Review Application No. 9 of 2025 titled "Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and Others vs. Sri Ram Prakash and Others", contained as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition, after summoning the originals, with all consequential benefits.

¶13

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the judgment and order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, in Original Application No. 332/00184/2018 (Sri Ram Prakash and Others vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and Others ), annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition."

¶14

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that initially a scheme was introduced in the year 1990 for absorption of casual/contract workers, wherein a specific condition was incorporated that it shall not be applicable to casual/contract workers engaged in any sponsored project or any time-bound project/scheme through any source and that it shall also not be applicable to persons engaged on contract through any outside agency.

¶15

The said scheme was challenged before the Tribunal and such conditions were found to be discriminatory. The judgment of the Tribunal was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in pursuance of the said directions, the 1995 Scheme was framed.

¶16

WRIA No. 12755 of 2025

¶17

¶18

The 1995 Scheme provided specific conditions indicating to whom it would be applicable in paragraph no. 3, wherein it was stated as follows:

¶19

"The Scheme being a one-time measure will be applicable to the workers engaged on casual basis and paid either on daily wage or monthly basis at CSIR Headquarters and its National Labs/Institutes and will also include casual workers engaged in a sponsored project/bilateral or any time-bound project/scheme. Casual workers include contract workers directly engaged by the CSIR Labs./Institutes and being paid their wages on monthly basis."

¶20

The petitioners were regularized under the 1995 Scheme in compliance of the judgment dated 04.05.2005 passed in O.A. Nos. 123 of 1995 and 296 of 2000. A circular was issued on 22.07.1997 clarifying that casual workers engaged in a sponsored project or any time bound project/scheme who may be eligible for identification for absorption under the 1995 Scheme shall not be eligible for grant of temporary status.

¶21

The services of respondent nos. 1 to 16 were absorbed by issuing appointment orders of different dates between 2007 and 2010. Copies of the appointment orders have been annexed as Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition, wherein certain conditions were laid down including the applicability of the new pension scheme to the respondents.

¶22

After working for more than a decade on the basis of such appointment orders, the respondents filed O.A. No. 332/00184 of 2018 challenging the communications dated 23.01.2018 and 25.10.2016, by which they were informed that in terms of their appointment letters, the old pension scheme would not be applicable to them, as their appointments were made after 01.01.2004, the date from which the new pension scheme became applicable.

¶23

The said communications were challenged, and O.A. No. 332/00184 of 2018 was allowed on 25.02.2025 extending the benefit of temporary status to be granted to respondent nos. 1 to 16 for absorption under the Casual Workers Absorption Scheme of CSIR, 1995, treating them as casual workers identified under the 1990 Scheme.

¶24

Such directions appear to be contrary to the judgment dated 04.05.2005, wherein it was specifically held that casual workers engaged in sponsored projects or time bound schemes were not entitled to claim any temporary status under the scheme.

¶25

Review Application No. 9 of 2025 was filed against the judgment dated 25.02.2025, which was also rejected by the Tribunal on 11.07.2025.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has pointed out that the earlier scheme of 1990 stood superseded by the 1995 Scheme. The Tribunal has found that after the 1995 Scheme, the differentiation made between casual workers granted temporary status not belonging to any project and casual workers directly engaged by

¶27

WRIA No. 12755 of 2025

¶28

¶29

the institutions under the CSIR was discriminatory in nature, treating equals unequally within the same class.

¶30

Counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that although the differences between the old and new schemes were highlighted in the written statements filed in the Original Application before the Tribunal, the Tribunal did not properly consider the same. When this fact was also raised in the Review Application, the Tribunal observed that it had already considered both schemes while delivering the judgment challenged in this writ petition.

¶31

Specific issues raised in the Review Application have been quoted in paragraph no. 3 of the judgment dated 11.07.2025 and though the Tribunal observed that it had dealt with such issues, a perusal of the judgment dated 11.07.2025 shows that those issues were, in fact, not considered at all.

¶32

Prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires consideration.

¶33

List this matter on 27.11.2025 , by which date the counter affidavit shall be filed by the respondents.

¶34

Till the next date of listing, the proceedings in the contempt petition pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow, shall remain stayed.

¶35

November 3, 2025 Mahesh

¶36

(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.)

¶37

Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Council of Scientific and Industrial Research New Delhi Thru. Its Dairecto General and 5 Others v. Sri Ram Prakash and 16 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Council of Scientific and Industrial Research New Delhi Thru. Its Dairecto General and 5 Others v. Sri Ram Prakash and 16 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt.Shakuntala Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing Lko and 3 Others

U.O.I. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Defence Army New Delhi and 3 Others vs Jc 221664-L Ex Nb Subedar Shiv Shanker Chaubey

Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence , New Delhi and Others vs Sanjay Kumar

Garden City Residents Welfare Association Thru. President Mr. Ajay Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko. and 7 Others

Iram Ansari @ Zuberia Fatma vs Mohd. Shahid Ansari and Others

Nidhi Srivastava vs Pankaj Srivastava