Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Kartick Mondal vs Eastern Railway on 18 April, 2022
/* CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA Date of Order: 18.04.2022 O.A. No. 350/277/2022 Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member In the matter of : Kartick Mondal, Son of Bhupendranath Mondal, aged about 50 years, working as Track Maintainer-IV under EnggSSE (PW) Howrah, residing at Village Ghariara Purba Para, PO Sonarpur PS Sonarpur Dist South 24 Parganas, West Bengal -- 700150. Mob No 9874427042. Email ID [email protected] bevseeees Applicant -Versus- 1. Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Fairlie Place, Kolkata -- '700001. 2. The Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Fairlie Place, Kolkata -- 700001. 3. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Howrah, PO+PS Howrah -- 711101. 4, The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi ~ 110001. beeen Respondents For The Applicant(s): Mr. A. Chakraborty, Mr. Argha Chakraborty: Counsel For The Respondent(s): Ms. D. Ghosh Dastidar, Counsel ORDER(ORAL) Per: Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Member (J)
Heard Ld. Counsels for both sides.
2. This application has been preferred to seek the following relief:
"(a) An order do issue directing the respondent nos.
1 and 2 to issue directions to the Competent Authority to grant scope of switching over to Old Pension Scheme in favour of the applicant on immediate basis for extending and effecting coverage of his case under Central Services (Pension)Rule 1972 in place of National Pension System at an earliest.
(b) To grant Costs and incidentals.
(c) Any other order or orders as the Hon'ble _ Tribunal deems fit and proper. "
This matter is taken up by Single Bench in view of the revised list dated 04.04.2000 issued under Sub-Section (6) of Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and, as no complicated question of law is involved, this matter is taken up for disposal with the consent of both the parties.
3. The applicant herein had applied against a Joint Employment Notice bearing no. ER/1/2001 SPL by the Eastern Railway for which he appeared in the Written test, as well as in PET, in the month of July and December respectively in the year 2003. The applicant was thereafter . declared successful and the selection process was completed before 01.01.2004 when the Old Pension Scheme was in effect. However, he was 'offered appointment only after 01.01.2004, i.e. on 08.07.2004, when the New Pension Scheme came into effect.
A, At hearing, Ld. Counsel for applicant would vociferously argue that, since the vacancies in question arose before the notification was issued with an implied promise of coverage under old rules, and, as the selection was completed before 01.01.2004, ie. before the introduction of New Pension Scheme (NPS in short) of 01.01.2004, but the orders could tad only be issued after 01.01.2004 on account of delay caused by the concerned authorities, his client should be covered by the Old Pension Rules of 1972, in terms of the DOPT notification dated 17.02.2020 itself.
Further in support, Ld. Counsel would cite the decision of the Hon'ble High Court at Delhi in WP (C) No. 2810/2016 in the case of - Inspector Rajendra Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors. rendered on 27 03.2017 wherein the petitioners who were reeruited after 01.01.2004, against vacancies that occurred before 01.01.2004 were declared as eminently entitled to be eovered by the Old Pension Rules and that bringing them &\ unto the ambit of New Pension Scheme of 2004 in bad in law.
Ld. Counsel for applicant would also place the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Shabad Prakash Punia SLP (C) No. 7873/2021 and bateh cases where the petitioners who had applied pursuant to the notification dated September, 2003 and June, 2003 for the post of Constable/(GD in Central Armed Police Forces and Sub- Inspectors through Staff Selection Commission, and had qualified in the said examination of 2003, sought for benefits under Old Pension Scheme under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1978, whereas, the New Contributory
- Pension Scheme that was introduced by a notification dated 22nd Deeember, 2008, and implemented with effect from let January, 2004, was applied, Hon'ble Court found that the batch mates of the most of the petitioners have been given the benefits of Old Pension Scheme under various judgments passed by the Court as under:
(i) Patil Gepal Babulal & Ors. vs. Union of india & Ors., WLP. [C} 11646 /2018;
ta {ii} Tanaka Ram & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., 2019 (174) DR] 146 (DB);
{ii} Shyam Kumar Choudhary and Ors, vs. Union of India being W.P. (C } No. 1358 of 2017 and fiv) Niraj Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C } No. 13129 /2019, The Hon'ble Court therein held as under' "a. The issue in the present batch. of matters is no langer res integra. Cunsequenths, the request for additional time to file counter-affidavit ts deci ined,
2. In the case of certain constables of the BSF, Gus Court by 6 judgment dated 12° february, 2019 In Tanake Ram (supra) allowed the prayer of these Patitioners and permitted them to avail af the bengfit of the Old Pensian Scheme 2 aay held that the option te continue the Old Pension Scheme should be extended to all those who has been selected in Hie examination conducted in 2003, but were issued call letters onfy in fanuery ar February, 8004. I is also pertinent to mention that the Respandents aagrieved by the seid judgment fled an SLE hearing No. 28226 /2079 hefure the Apex Court. The said SUP has been dismissed by Ghe Supreme Court vide order dated 0257 Sentember, 2029, 2, This Court ip Shean Kumar Choudhary and Ors, vs, Union of India being WESC) NG. L888 of 2017 ollswed similar petitions yide Judgment dated 09% April, 2022 against which the Respondents had again Hiled SLP bearing no, 21539 /2019 which wos again dismissed on 27% September, 2019, The Respondents thereafter chose ta fle a review petition bearing no. 2188/2020 before the Apex Court in the suid matter and Ge seid Review petition was alee dismissed on merits vide order dated 244 November, 2020. i. Following the judgment af Shyant Kumar Choudhary Gupre},. Ge learned predecessor Division Bench in Niraj Kumar Singh and Ors: Vs. Union of india & Ors, WP.(C) No. T3IZ29/2079 granted similar benefit te 17 petitioners whe had applied to the post of Sub-Inspector in Central Police Organisations pursunné to ah advertisement dated 215 fune, 2003 even when the written examination aid physical efficiency best. were heid in November, 2003, medical exantination was bed in Janwary-Febreary, 2004 and final result was declared in May, 2004. The said 17 petitioners were issued offer of appointment on 02" June, 2008 and on aeceating the same, the appointment letter wets issued an 248 July, 2005 for jobring the Sashastra Seema Bal, 42, Another Courdinate Beneh vide judgment dated O5% November, 2020 in WORD No. 6548 of 2020 as well ax 6889/2080 was pleased ta nllov the said petitions for grant of Oi Peasion Scheme by follwing the judgmantia Shyam Kumar Choudhary (supra).
os Ts Having regard te he fret that in due present botelof cgsen alsa ine advertisement/nodfication wee issued in September, 2002 and lune, 2003 ie prior £G coming inte force of the present contriintory pension scheme an de December, 2003. His Court is af the view that petitioners cannot be denrived of the henells af the Qld Pension Scheme.
£4, This ig more so when the batchmates af the petideners are geting this beng fit aader variaus judgments parsed by Dus Court 15, Ror the ahove reasuns, the petiianers are allowed. Respondents are directed to extend the benefit of Old Pension Scheme to ench of these Petitioners mind BOSS consequential orders within a period nfeight weeks fram todap. i 16, Aceardingly, the writ petitions along with pending applications stand disposed ap"
The decision was rendered on 15.01.2021 by the Hon'ble High Court at New Delhi and the decision in ane of such Writ Petitions bearing No. WP (C)9252/2020, was ageailed before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 7373/8021 but the SLP was dismissed on 09.07.2021, NAA --
<< AWW' '" k,,_ wo Oh SSa Ue
5. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the applicant would vocilerously contend that the issue has attained a finality that, where the vacancies arose and the notification to fill up vacancies was published before 01.01.2004, the recruitment process was also initiated as also the results were published prior to 01.01.2004, but the appointment letters could be issued only after 01.01.2004, the incumbents would still be governed by the Old Pension Rules of 1972, as in the decisions quoted supra.
Ld. Counsel would also refer to the judgment of this Tribunal in O.A. 1815 of 2021 (Prem Kumar Vs SE Railway) and analogous oom Ws matters which is taken on record.
airy, Lo Banh
6. Ld. Counsel for respondents would fairly agree that the matter can be remanded back to the authorities for a fresh consideration in the light of the decision in Inspector Rajendra Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors., as well as in Shabad Prakash Punia & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors. referred to supra.
Therefore, the instant O.A. is hereby be disposed of with a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the applicant dated 03.08.2020 (at Annexure A-5 to the O.A.) and to address the grievance of the applicant in the light of the DoPT O.M, dated 17.02.2020, as well as, the decisions cited supra and to pass an appropriate order within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. The O.A,, accordingly, stands disposed of. No costs.
(Bidisha Banerjee} Member (J) Ui ;