Disposed¶42

Ajay Kumar Gupta v. Jawaharlal Nehru University

Delhi HC13 Aug 2025W.P.(C)/4523/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Old Pension Scheme versus New Pension Scheme; coverage under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972; qualifying service commencing from first temporary/officiating appointment; Rule 13 CCS (Pension) Rules; regularisation after 01.01.2004 cutoff; JNU retired Junior Engineer (Electrical); DoPPW Office Memorandums dated 17.02.2020 and 03.03.2023; Chandi Prasad W.P.(C) 3481/2019 followed; Article 226 writ petition; eight-week direction to JNU; disposed with directions.

What did the court decide?

Coverage under the Old Pension Scheme (CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972) in place of NPS; continuous appointment from 09.08.2000 to be counted as qualifying service; petitioner deemed to have been in service prior to 01.01.2004 and governed by OPS; JNU to take consequential steps and issue the necessary orders in favour of the petitioner within eight weeks. ¶42

Ajay Kumar Gupta Vs Jawaharlal Nehru University — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner — first engaged by JNU in temporary service (selected as temporary Junior Engineer (Electrical) by communication dated 09.08.2000) and regularly appointed as Junior Engineer (Electrical) only with effect from 22.12.2009 — is entitled to coverage under the Old Pension Scheme (CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972) in place of the New Pension Scheme, relying on Office Memorandums dated 17.02.2020 and 03.03.2023 concerning employees whose selection was finalised before 01.01.2004 but who joined service on or after that date. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

Under Rule 13 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, qualifying service commences on the date of the employee's first appointment, even if in an officiating or temporary capacity; accordingly the petitioner's qualifying service commenced on 09.08.2000, and he was in continuous service thereafter until superannuation in August 2021.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The distinction sought by JNU — that the petitioner's regular appointment was to a different post than the post held in temporary capacity — is not well founded; Rule 13 of the CCS (Pension) Rules confers the benefit even where the subsequent substantive appointment is in another service or post.

¶40

Key takeaways

The petitioner is covered by the judgment in Chandi Prasad; JNU is directed to proceed on the basis that his continuous appointment from 09.08.2000 counts as qualifying service.ratio¶41
As in Chandi Prasad, the petitioner is deemed to have been in service prior to 01.01.2004 and will be governed by OPS; JNU is directed to take consequential steps and issue the necessary orders in favour of the petitioner within eight weeks.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Prateek Jalan, J., oral) disposed of W.P.(C) 4523/2023 (Ajay Kumar Gupta v. Jawaharlal Nehru University) on 13.08.2025, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner, a retired JNU employee first engaged in temporary service in the Genetic Engineering Unit in 1989 and selected as temporary Junior Engineer (Electrical) by communication dated 09.08.2000 (following W.P.(C) 5480/1998 and JNU's order dated 21.03.2000), was regularly appointed as Junior Engineer (Electrical) only with effect from 22.12.2009 by Office Order dated 15.01.2010 (with NPS benefit per GoI notification dated 22.12.2003) and retired on 31.08.2021; he claimed coverage under the Old Pension Scheme relying on DoPPW Office Memorandums dated 17.02.2020 and 03.03.2023. Held: the case is covered by Chandi Prasad (W.P.(C) 3481/2019, dated 19.09.2024); under Rule 13 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, qualifying service commences on first appointment even in an officiating or temporary capacity, and the benefit applies even where the substantive appointment is in another service or post; the plea that regularisation was to a different post was rejected. His continuous appointment from 09.08.2000 is to be counted as qualifying service, he is deemed to have been in service prior to 01.01.2004 and is governed by OPS; JNU directed to take consequential steps and issue necessary orders within eight weeks.

¶1

$~5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Decided on: 13.08.2025

¶4

W.P.(C) 4523/2023 AJAY KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Bhushan Kapur, Advocate alongwith Petitioner in Person.

¶5

versus JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vasanth Rajasekaran, Senior Standing counsel for JNU with Mr. Karan Prakash, Mr. Harshvardhan Korada, Mr. Om Bali & Mr D. Kumar, Advocates. [M:8826502108]

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶7

PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)

¶8

The petitioner is a retired employee of Jawaharlal Nehru University [“JNU”]. He has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking coverage under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 [“CCS (Pension) Rules”], also known as the Old Pension Scheme [“OPS”].

¶9

The petitioner was first engaged by JNU in the year 1989 in temporary service, as part of the Genetic Engineering Unit [“GEU”]. GEU was shut down in the year 1998, following which some of the

¶10

Signature Not Verified

¶11

W.P.(C) 4523/2023

¶12

Page 1 of 5

¶13

Signed By:BHUPENDER Signing Date:14.08.2025 14:35:01

¶14

erstwhile employees approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) 5480/1998, seeking regularisation. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court in the said writ petition, by order dated 21.03.2000, the petitioner’s case was also considered by JNU. By a communication dated 09.08.2000, he was selected for appointment as a temporary Junior Engineer (Electrical) for a period of one year. It is undisputed that he continued in the service of JNU by way of various temporary appointments, until he was appointed as Junior Engineer (Electrical) on regular basis with effect from 22.12.2009. This appointment was notified by Office Order dated 15.01.2010, which provided that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the New Pension Scheme [“NPS”], as notified by the Government of India [“GoI”] by notification dated 22.12.2003.

¶15

The petitioner continued in the service of JNU till his retirement on 31.08.2021.

¶16

In the writ petition, reliance has been placed upon two Office Memorandums issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare, GoI, relating to coverage under OPS in place of NPS, of those Central Government Employees, whose selection for appointment was finalised before 01.01.2004, but joined government service on or after 01.01.2004. Copies of the said Office Memorandums dated 17.02.2020 and 03.03.2023 have also been placed on record.

¶17

Although Mr. Bhushan Kapur, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Karan Prakash, learned counsel for JNU, have joined issue on the proper interpretation of the said Office Memorandums, I am of the view that adjudication of this controversy is unnecessary, as the petitioner’s

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

W.P.(C) 4523/2023

¶20

Page 2 of 5

¶21

Signed By:BHUPENDER Signing Date:14.08.2025 14:35:01

¶22

case is covered by a judgment of this Court in Chandi Prasad and Ors v. Union of India and Ors. [W.P.(C) 3481/2019, dated 19.09.2024] [hereinafter, “ Chandi Prasad ”].

¶23

The writ petition in Chandi Prasad was also filed by retired employees of JNU, who were initially appointed on daily wages/ adhoc /temporary basis, but were substantively appointed on various posts after 01.01.2004. They contended that their period of service prior to 01.01.2004 rendered them eligible for coverage under the OPS, notwithstanding the fact that they had been appointed to regular posts after 01.01.2004. This contention was accepted by the Court with the following observations:-

¶24

“ 14. From a conspectus of the aforementioned judgments, it is palpably clear that Courts have repeatedly affirmed that if an employee enters service prior to 01.01.2004, i.e. the date of enforcement of NPS, in whatever capacity, whether as temporary or ad-hoc employee and renders continuous and uninterrupted service, followed by regularisation/absorption, the period of service shall count towards qualifying service for pension and such an employee will be deemed to be in service prior to 01.01.2004 and thus governed by OPS. This is the view taken by this Court in Dr. Archana Verma (supra) and Dr. Ravindra Narayan Mishra (supra) . This Court is conscious of the fact that an appeal is pending in Dr. Ravindra Narayan Mishra (supra) but be it noted that when the appeal was listed on 07.05.2024, the Court had made a categorical observation that the Bench was not staying the operation of the order and it would be open to the Respondents to seek implementation of the order as per law. In view of the many judgments, now covering the issue in favour of the Petitioners, it is hardly open to JNU to take a position that Petitioners are covered under the expression “new entrants/new recruits” envisaged under NPS, wiping out their entire past service and depriving them of pension under OPS.

¶25

15. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court comes to the irresistible conclusion that entire service of the Petitioners from the date of initial appointments on daily wages/ad-hoc/temporary basis till the date of permanent appointment/regularization shall be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and they will

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

W.P.(C) 4523/2023

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

Signed By:BHUPENDER Signing Date:14.08.2025 14:35:01

¶30

be deemed to be in service prior to 01.01.2004 and governed by OPS. Needless to state that NPS will be inapplicable to the Petitioners and accordingly, necessary and corrective orders shall be issued by JNU in this regard. ”¹

¶31

The only distinction urged by Mr. Prakash, is that the petitioner in the present case was appointed to a different post on regular basis by the office order dated 15.01.2010, than the post he held in temporary capacity. I do not find such a distinction in the above extracts of Chandi Prasad . In any event, the position is clarified in favour of the petitioner by Rule 13 of the CCS (Pension) Rules which reads as follows:-

¶32

“ 13. Commencement of qualifying service – Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity:

¶33

Rule 13 of the CCS (Pension) Rules makes it clear that qualifying service commences on the date the employee is first appointed, notwithstanding that the original appointment is in officiating or temporary capacity. It is clear therefrom that the petitioner’s qualifying service commenced from 09.08.2000, as he was thereafter in continuous service without interruption, until his superannuation in August, 2021. The proviso to the said rule requires such officiating or temporary service to be followed by substantive appointment, but expressly confers the benefit even if the substantive appointment is in “ another service or

¶34

1 Emphasis supplied.

¶35

2 Emphasis supplied.

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

W.P.(C) 4523/2023

¶38

Page 4 of 5

¶39

Signed By:BHUPENDER Signing Date:14.08.2025 14:35:01

¶40

post ”. The distinction sought to be drawn to distinguish the judgment in Chandi Prasad is, therefore, not well founded, on a reading of Rule 13 of the CCS (Pension) Rules itself.

¶41

Consequently, the petitioner is covered by the judgment in Chandi Prasad, and JNU is directed to proceed on the basis that the petitioner’s continuous appointment from 09.08.2000 would be counted as qualifying service. As in Chandi Prasad , the petitioner is deemed to have been in service prior to 01.01.2004, and will be governed by OPS. JNU is directed to take consequential steps, and issue the necessary orders in favour of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶42

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

¶43

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶44

AUGUST 13, 2025 ‘pv’/AD/

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

W.P.(C) 4523/2023

¶47

Page 5 of 5

¶48

Signed By:BHUPENDER Signing Date:14.08.2025 14:35:01

Ajay Kumar Gupta v. Jawaharlal Nehru University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Gupta v. Jawaharlal Nehru University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Deepak Duggal Vs Delhi Development Authority

Kings Dorian Exports Vs Irfan

M/S Elementto Lifestyles Vs Mr. Deepak Singh Bora

Santosh Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Bls International Services Limited Vs Union of India & Anr.

M/S Gvr Infra Projects Limited & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Tpf Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs National Highways Authority of India & Anr.

Tpf Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs National Highways Authority of India & Anr.

Santosh Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Sumant Yadav Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Saksham Infraedge LLP Vs Govt of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Anoop Singh Vs Muncipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Ms Farzana Begum and Ors. Vs the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Dr Gyan Prakash Sharma Vs Union of India and Anr.