Delhi High Court - Orders
Ramesh Chand Meena And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 7 December, 2020
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Asha Menon
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9098/2020
RAMESH CHAND MEENA AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Mananjay Kumar Mishra, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Mr. Amit Sinha, Ms.
Sharanya Sinha and Mr. Vaibhav
Pratap, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
ORDER
% 07.12.2020 [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
CMs No.29364/2020 & 29365/2020 (both for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.
2. The applications are disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.9098/2020
3. The 112 petitioners, claiming to have been recruited in the respondents Border Security Force (BSF) vide the same recruitment process as the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.6680/2017 titled Tanaka Ram and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. and in W.P.(C) No.10189/2016 titled HC/RO Ravikant Chaudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., which were allowed vide judgment dated 12th February, 2019, seek a direction to the respondents BSF to treat the petitioners as members of the Old Pension Scheme and to extend to the petitioners the pensionary benefits as per the W.P.(C) 9098/2020 Page 1 of 2 Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972. Declaration is also sought that the Notification dated 22nd December, 2003 is discriminatory.
4. We have enquired from the counsel for the respondents BSF that if the petitioners were recruited in the same batch as the petitioners in Tanaka Ram and Ravikant Chaudhary supra, why should this petition be not allowed today itself.
5. The counsel for the respondents BSF states that the petitioners, for the first time made a representation on 19th October, 2020 and without giving time for consideration thereof, have rushed to this Court. It is stated that the position would be verified from the records of each of the petitioners and either a statement would be made on the next date of hearing to the effect that the petitioners be granted the same relief as granted in Tanaka Ram and Ravikant Chaudhary supra or a counter affidavit will be filed explaining reasons why the petitioners are not entitled to the relief as granted in Tanaka Ram and Ravikant Chaudhary supra.
6. Issue notice.
7. Notice is accepted by the counsel for the respondents BSF.
8. Counter affidavit be filed within eight weeks.
9. Rejoinder thereto, if any be filed within further four weeks thereafter.
10. List on 12th April, 2021.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
ASHA MENON, J.
DECEMBER 7, 2020/'bs' W.P.(C) 9098/2020 Page 2 of 2