Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad

Sheetal Prasad Semwal vs Secretary Ministry Of Defence on 22 February, 2023

                                               O.A. No. 127/2021



                                    (Reserved on 21.2.2023)

     Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench,
                (Circuit Sitting at Nainital)

            ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.127/2021

This the 22nd day of February, 2023

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)

1.     Sheetal Prasad Semwal (Male) aged about 43 years
son of Shri Anusuya Prasad Semwal, presently posted as Sr.
Stores Assistant, Materials Management Group, Defence
Electronics    Applications Laboratory,    Raipur    Road,
Dehradun.
2.     RAvinder Kumar Pant (Male) aged about 41 years s/o
late Sh. Keshav Chandra Pant, presently posted as Technical
Officer, B- Materials Management Group. Defence
Electronics    Applications Laboratory,    Raipur    Road,
Dehradun.
3.     Hari Kisan (Male) aged about 41 years presently
posted as Sr. Stores Assistant, Materials Management
Group. Defence Electronics Applications Laboratory, Raipur
Road, Dehradun.


                                                .......Applicant
By Advocate -      Shri Vikas Pandey

                         VERSUS

1.    Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Defence, Department of Defence Research and Development,
New Delhi.
2.    Defence Research and Development Organisation
through its Chairman, DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi.
3.    Director, Defence Electronics Applications Laboratory,
Raipur Road, Dehradun.
                                          Respondents

By Advocate -       Shri T.C.Agrawal

                         ORDER

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash-VII, Member (J) The present O.A. has been filed by the applicants to quash the impugned order dated 7.10.2020 passed by the respondent No. 2 and for direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. The brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of the advertisement dated 23/29.3.2002 , applicants applied and Page 1 of 6 O.A. No. 127/2021 after passing the written test, appeared in the interview held in the month of November, 2004 and offer of appointment was given to the applicants on 25.1.2005 for the post of Store Assistant "A". Applicants have submitted his joining on 14.3.2005, 23.3.2005 and 6.5.2005 respectively. Govt. of India on 22.12.2003 introduced new contributory pension scheme w.e.f. 1.1.2004. It is stated that due to inordinate delay in process of selection and issuance of appointment letters, applicants were denied the benefit of old pension scheme under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents have filed counter affidavit stating therein that recruitment process involved various stages- scrutiny of applications, verification of education certificate, claims of SC,ST, OBC and PH, issuance of call letters, conducting of written, typing and interview, conduct of medical examination etc. It is further stated that at the time of joining, all the three applicants have submitted letter to Director , DEAL stating that all the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment letter are acceptable to him and after a period of more than 10 years form his joining service in 2005, they never submitted any application/ representation claiming coverage under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. On 17.2.2020, Govt. of India, Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare issued O.M. dated 17.2.2020 and this O.M. was based on various court judgments on the subject and it is prescribed condition under which coverage under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 can be extended in cases where the recruitment process started before 1st January, 2004 but applicants have joined after 1st January, 2004. In pursuance of the said O.M, DRDO issued letter dated 2.3.2020 to all DRDO calling option from the concerned officials which were to be examined in terms of the provisions of O.M. dated 17.2.2020. In response to the office letter dated 2.3.2020, applicants submitted applications on 4.3.2020 claiming coverage under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Committee examined all the applications and recommended coverage of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in respect of only those applicants whose cases were covered under any of the seven types of cases Page 2 of 6 O.A. No. 127/2021 mentioned in para 3 of the O.M. Since the applicants were not covered under any of the seven types of cases mentioned in para 3 of O.M. dated 17.2.2020 and their cases were covered under para 7 of the ibid O.M. Hence, they were not found eligible for coverage under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that advertisement was published in the year 2002, Govt. of India issued O.M. dated 22.12.2003 introducing new contributory pension scheme w.e.f. 1.1.2004 after written examination. Applicants appeared in the interview in November, 2004 and appointment letter was issued on 25.1.2005 and applicants have joined on 14.3.2005, 23.3.2005 and 6.5.2005 respectively. It is argued that due to delay in selection process, applicants were denied the benefit of old pension scheme, hence the applicants are entitled for the grant of old pension scheme because the rule of game cannot be changed in the midway as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. Representation of the applicant dated 4.3.2020 was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 7.10.2020 which is not a speaking order. It is further argued that applicants have applied before issuance of O.M. dated 22.12.2003 introducing new contributory pension scheme w.e.f. 1.1.2004. Learned counsel for applicants has placed reliance of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. © No. 2810 /2016 (Inspector Rajendra Singh and others Vs. UOI and others) decided on 27th March, 2017 and judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Uttrakhand in Special Appeal No. 330 of 2013 State of Uttrakhand and others Vs. Balwant Singh and others with Special Appeal No. 523 of 2013 in State of Uttrakhand and others Vs. Chandra Shekhar Singh and others decided on 26.4.2014. Learned counsel for applicants has also placed reliance of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Krishna Rath Vs. M.A. A.Baig (Dead) AIR 1999 SC 2093 and judgment of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in W.P. © No. 7369/201 (Sanjay Kumar and another Vs. UOI and others ) decided on 4.2.2022.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that recruitment process involved various stages- scrutiny of applications hence it takes some tome in finalizing the same. Applicants joined the services in the year 2005 and O.M. dated 22.12.2003 for new pension scheme was introduced before joining of the applicant, hence applicants are not entitled for old pension scheme. It is also argued that applicant does not come under para 3 of the O.M. dated 17.2.2020 because they have joined after 1.1.2004. Para 3 of the O.M. reads as under:-

"Candidate selected before 1.1.2004 through a common competitive examination were allocated to different departments/ organizations. While recruitment process was completed by some departments/ organizations on or before 31.12.2003 in respect of one or more candidates, the offers of appointment to the candidates allocated to the other departments/organization were issued on or after 1.1.2004."

7. We have considered the rival submission of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.

8. From perusal of the record, it is evident that applicants have applied for the post in the year 2002 in pursuance of the advertisement dated 23/29.3.2002 and applicants appeared in the interview in the month of November, 2004 after introducing the new pension scheme O.M. dated 22.12.2003 w.e.f. 1.1.2004. According to para 3 of the O.M. dated 17.2.2020, it is clear that candidates who have selected prior to 1.1.2004 shall be entitled for old pension scheme but in the present case applicants have only applied before 1.1.2004, his final selection was made in the year 2005.

9. In the case of Inspector Rajendra Singh and others Vs. UOI and others (supra), Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding the issue involved between the parties has held that employees recruited in the same batch should not be discriminated. Thus, directed to the authority concern to grant old pension scheme to the petitioners who joined the Page 4 of 6 O.A. No. 127/2021 service after implementation of aforesaid O.M. due to delay occurred on the pat of the authority/ department concerned.

10. In the case of Gopal Krishna Rath Vs. M.A.A. Baig (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that after commencement of the selection process, subsequent change in recruitment regarding qualification will not effect the process of selection which has already commenced.

11. In the case of Sanjay Kumar and another Vs. UOI and others (supra), Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in similar circumstances allowed the prayer made by the petitioner directing the appropriate authority to extend the benefit of old pension scheme to the petitioner.

12. In the case of Special Appeal No. 330 of 2013 State of Uttrakhand and others Vs. Balwant Signh and others with Special Appeal No. 523 of 2013 in State of Uttrakhand and others Vs. Chandra Shekhar Singh (supra), Hon'bel High Court of Uttrakhand has held that when the petitioners had applied, old pension scheme was in existence, therefore, the petitioner had every reasonable expectation that they would be governed by the service conditions prevailing on the date posts were advertised and recruitment process was commenced.

13. If the facts of the present matter are compared with the ratio laid down in aforementioned cases certainly post had been advertised prior to the implementation of new pension scheme, selection process (written examination) had been conducted. Applicant's claim will also not be defeated because condition had been incorporated in the joining letter regarding acceptance of new pension scheme. Thus, in our considered view, service conditions, prevailing on the date recruitment process commenced, cannot be permitted to be altered in disadvantage of the recruitees. In the instant case, the process of selection was stated in the year 2002 and new pension scheme came in existence on 22.12.2003, therefore, the case law relied upon by the applicant fully supports the case of the applicants and we are of the opinion that applicants are entitled for old pension scheme because at the time of filing of application, old pension scheme was in existence.

14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, O.A. is allowed. Impugned order dated 7.10.2020 is quashed. Respondents are directed to give the benefit of old pension scheme to the applicants with all consequential benefits.

15. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Mohan Pyare)                     (Justice Om Prakash -VII)
  Member (A)                                 Member (J)

HLS/-




                                                    Page 6 of 6