Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Saumen Paul vs Ordnance Factory on 27 October, 2022
oO
1
OA 350/1742/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA
~ (Through Audio/Video Conference) ©
pa ob
O.A./350/01742/ 2022
Date of Order: 27.10.2022
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Dr. (Ms.) Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member |
In the matter of :
Shri Saumen Paul,
Son of Shri Raghunath Paul, aged
about 47 years, residing at Village-
Gajna, Post Office- East Bishnupur, .
PS- Gaighata, District-24-Parganas
(North), and working to the post of
High Skilled-li in the Ordnance
Factory, Dum Dum (a Unit of Yantra
India Limited), a Government of India
Enterprise, situated at Jessore Road,
Dum Dum, Kolkata-700028 under the
control and authority of General
Manager, Ordnance Factory, Dum
Dum.
..... Applicant
Vs.
1. Union of India service through
the Secretary, Ministry of Defence
(Defence and
Government of India, South Block,
New Delhi-110001.
Me
Production),
2 GA 350/1742/2022
2. The Director. General
Ordnance{ Coordination and Service},
Department of Defence Production,
Government of India, Ministry of
Defence, 104, Shaheed Khudiram
Bose Road, Kolkata-700001. a
3. The Chairman and Managing
Director, Yantra' India Limited, A
Government of india Enterprise
under Ministry of Defence,
Headquarters- Nagpur, C/o.
Ordnance = Factory, © Ambhajari,
Amravati Road, Nagpur,
Maharashtra- 440021.
4. The General Manager,
Ordnance Factory, Dum. Dur {a Unit -
of Yantra India Limited}, A
'Government of india Enterprise,
situated at Jessore Road, Dum Dum,
~ Kolkata-700028.
wow Respondents
For The Applicant(s): Mr: P. C. Das, Counsel
. Ms. T. Maity, Counsel
For The Respondent(s): None
ORDER (ORAL)
Per! Hon'ble Dr. (Ms.) Nandita Chaiteriee, Administrative Member | The applicant has approached this Tribunal challenging an office letter dated 20.01.2021 which had rejected his prayer for coverage under ccs (Pension) Rules, 1972, and, to seek the following relief under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 :
a . _ OA 350/1742/2022 "a) To quash and/or set aside the impugned office letter dated 20"
fanuary, 2021 issued by the General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Dum Bum by which the cloim of the applicant for coverage of Old Pension Scheme under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 has been rejected by violation of DoP&PW OM No. 87/04/2019-P&P{(B) dated 1A.02.2020 issued by the Department of Personne! & Training, New Delhi and also by violation of the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 15" January, 2021 in WPIC} No. $252 of 2620 in the case af Shabad Prakash Punia & Ors.
"Vs. Union of India & Ors. being Annexure A-7 of this original .
upplication.
&) To quash .ond/or set aside the impugned order of rejection dated 24.12.2021 issued by the General Manager, Ordnance Factary, Dur Dum which js utter violation af DoP&PW OM No. S7/04/2019- P&P{B) dated 17.02.2020 issued by the Department of Personne! & Training, New Delhi and also by violation of the various judiciat decisians passed by the Han'ble. High Caurts as well.as this Han'ble Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court being Annexure A-9 of this original application, ¢) To quash and/or set aside the impugned office memo dated 17the February, 2020 issued by DOP&T by which the paragraph 18 of the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Inspector Rajendra Singh & Ors. vs. Union of india & Ors. has not been followed and by misinterpretation of that paragraph, the aforesaid office memo issued by the DOP&T cannot be applicable being Annexure A-17 of this originef application.
qd) To declore that the present applicant wha has been declared successful on the basis of the Employment Notification of (2003 published by- Gua & Shell Factory. Kolkata. being Annexure Asd of this original application te. the post ef Durwan against vacancies af 8 number of pasts whose written examination and interview. was completed on 8° June, 2003 and 9" June, 2003 long before the cut-
off date of New Pension Scheme ie., 01.01.2004 is entivied for coverage of Git Pension Schenie under CCS. {Pension} Rules, 1972 und hie is entitled for such benefit by setting aside ond/or quashing. the impugned rejection orders dated 20.01.2021 and 24.12,2021. being Annexure A-7 and 4-9 of this original apalication in the light of fhe of DoP&PW OM No. 57/04/2019-P&P(B) dated 17.02.2020 ' issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi and in the light of the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble High . Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 15 Jonuary, 2021 in WPIC) Ne, 9252 of 2020 in the case of Shabad Prakash Punia & Ors, Vs. Union of india & Ors." .
2. - Heard Learned Counsel for the applicant, who would. submit that, the applicant was appointed by the respondents on 10.03.2005 on the basis of written examination and interview conducted on 08.06.2003 and 09.06.2003 4 7 OA 350/1742/2022 spectively. That, thereafter an 18.03.2005, the applicant was officially posted to the post of Durwan and is functioning as such till date.
As the coordinate bench of this Tribunal at Ermakulam, in OA No. 180/20/2015, had granted the benefit of Old Pension Scheme in favour of the employees who had responded to sivertisement made on or before 01.01.2004, and, as the DOP&PW had issued an OM dated 17.02.2020 wherein employees were offered an opportunity of opting for the Pension Scheme as promulgated under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the applicant preferred a representation dated 27.06.2020 (annexed at Annexure-A/6 to the OA) to conshter him for coverage under such Old Pension Scheme under CCS {Pension} Rules, 1972, On 20.01.2021, the applicant's prayer was rejected (annexed at Annexure- A/7 to the OA}, and, being aggrieved thereupon, the applicant has approached this Tribunal praying for the aforementioned relief,
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant would further submit that, the applicant has prayed for retonsidération of his prayer for inclusion under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 on 25.05.2022 (annexed at Annexure-A/10 to the OA) citing relevant judicial decisions, and particularly those in Patil Gopal Babulal & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. fwe (C) 11646/2018], Tanaka Rom & Ors. vs. Union of india & Ors. | [2019 {174) DRI 146 {DB)], Shyam Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India & Ors. [WP {C) No. 1358 of 2017], Niraj Kumar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors, [ wP {¢} 13129/2017), Delhi High Court order dated 15.01.2021 in WP (c) 5208/2020 and Shabad Prakash Punia & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [ WP(C) No. 9252 of BY fs 2020). ee 5 "QA 350/1742/2022 _ Learned Counsel for the applicant would further submit that, the applicant would be fairly satisfied if the authorities are directed to reconsider his prayer in' ~ > the light of the decisions cited therein.
4. AS an innocuous prayer for reconsideration of the decision of the authorities has beer made and is placed on record, this Tribunal would refrain from entering into the merits of this matter and would proceed to further direct the addressee respondent authority or any other competent respondent authority to examine the contents of the applicant's réprédéntation dated 25.05.2022 {annexed at Annexure-A/10 to the OA), in the light of the judicial decisions cited therein, and, in particular, the orders of this Tribunal in OA 350/731/2021 dated 26.07.2021.
The authorities shall apply their mind to all relevant judicial decisions in this regard and "reconsider" the applicant's claim after examining the applicability of his prayer in the backdrop of such judicial decisions and his entitlement as claimed with respect to the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
The respondents shall convey their decision within a period of 4 months _ from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. . With these directions, the OA is disposed of. There will be no orders on costs.
(Dr. Nandita Chatterjee) (Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia) Administrative Member Judicial Member sl