Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Dinesh Devgun S/O Shri Surinder Devgan vs Union Of India Through The Secretary To ... on 27 October, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
CHANDIGARH BENCH.
O.A.NO.751-CH-2009 Decided on : October 27, 2010
CORAM : HONBLE MRS. SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER (J) AND
HONBLE MRS. PROMILLA ISSAR, MEMBER (A).
1. Dinesh Devgun S/o Shri Surinder Devgan, working as Clerk, Deputy Commissioner Office, Chandigarh.
2. Manisha Pundir D/o Shri Jang Bahadur, working as Clerk, Deputy Commissioner Office, Chandigarh.
3. Amandeep Kaur D/o Shri Avtar Singh, Clerk, Deputy Commissioner Office, Chandigarh.
Applicants
By : Mr. R.K.Sharma, Advocate
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (U.T. Chandigarh Branch), New Delhi.
By : Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate.
2. Chandigarh Administration, Union Territory, Chandigarh through Administrator
3. The Finance Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh
4. Deputy Commissioner, U.T. Chandigarh.
By : Mr. Aseem Rai, Advocate.
Respondents
ORDER (ORAL)
HONBLE MRS.SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER (J) The applicants have filed this Original Application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a declaration that new restructured defined Contribution Pension Scheme for new entrants to Chandigarh Administration Services introduced and made workable vide Notification dated 11.6.2009, cannot be made applicable to the applicants who have been appointed against the vacancies of 2001 and the process of recruitment was also initiated in their cases in 2001 itself and a Scheme or rule has to be applied prospective only and it becomes operational only when it is made workable and the instant scheme had remained unworkable till issuance of notification dated 11.6.2009, thus, it has to apply prospectively only and not to cases of employees who have been appointed prior to this notification and the applicants have a legitimate expectation to be governed by the old GPF and Pension Scheme existing prior to issuance of new Scheme on 11.6.2009 and the case of the applicants is covered by the decision in the cases of Honble Supreme court in State of Sikkim v. Dorjee Tsfter-ing Bhatia and Others, JT 1991 (3) SC 456 as followed in 2001 (1) SLR, Page 09 (Guneeta Chadha & Others Vs. Union of India & Others).
(ii) Restrain the respondents from effecting recovery from the arrears payable to the applicants on account of revision of their pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.2006 on account of contribution to new CPF Scheme which is in fact not applicable to the applicants having been made workable only after issuance of notification dated 11.6.2009 and action of respondents be declared as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
2. The projected case of the applicants is that the process to fill up the posts of Clerks was initiated by issuance of an advertisement dated 28.3.2001. At that time the GPF Scheme with Pension was in operation. However, a lot of time was consumed in completion of the appointment process and the applicants ultimately came to be appointed in July, 2004 only, by which time the new CPF Scheme of 2004 had come into operation w.e.f. 1.1.2004. It is further the case of the applicants that the new CPF Scheme has come into operation only when letter dated 11.6.2009 was issued, making it operational and as such they have to be treated as having been appointed under the old GPF Scheme.
3. The respondents have filed a reply to contest the claim of the applicants. Their plea is that this issue has already been settled by this Court in the identical case of Nazar Kumar & Others Vs. Union of India & Others.
4. We are not reproducing the pleadings of the parties in detail as the issue is no longer res-integra and stands settled by this very Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nazar Kumar & Other Vs. Union of India & Others etc. (O.A.No.338-CH-2008 and O.A.No.408-CH-2008) decided on 10.06.2010. Para 15 of the judgment being relevant is reproduced as under:
15. In view of the above proposition of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, the U.T. Chandigarh, while adopting the notification dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure A-3) issued by the State of Punjab introducing new CPF Scheme for its employees w.e.f. 1.1.2004 vide order dated 14.2.2007 (Annexure A-2) and also making necessary amendment in the relevant rules w.e.f. 1.1.2004, could not make it effective from any other date as the complete scheme was made effective and the said scheme takes effect w.e.f. 1.1.2004. We do not find any illegality in the order dated 14.2.2007, Annexure A-2 or the Circular dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure A-3) as it does not make any amendment to the basic scheme. The date from which the Scheme is to take effect is mentioned in the Scheme itself. We do not find that any grounds have been made out to interfere with the date from which the new Scheme has been made effective in U.T. Chandigarh i.e. 1.1.2004. In so far as claim of ante-dating of their appointment is concerned, that can also not be accepted in view of the rejection of such claim in an earlier petition. Under some misconception, the applicants contributed towards GPF Scheme and such amount is now being refunded to them and they are to be made members of CPF Scheme, having been substantively appointed after 1.1.2004. This can also not be faulted with.
4. Finding that the case of the applicants is covered on all fours with the decision aforesaid, this Original Application is dismissed. The various authorities cited on behalf of the applicants do not help them and are distinguishable on facts and law. No costs.
(PROMILLA ISSAR) (SHYAMA DOGRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Place: Chandigarh. Dated: October 27, 2010 HC* - 3 - O.A.No. 751-CH-2009