Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr Dalbir Singh Saklani vs Ministry Of Education on 5 February, 2025
1
OANo. 3835/2022
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No. 3835/2022
Reserved on: 28.11.2024
Pronounced on: .01.2025
Hon'bleMr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
1. Dr. Dalbir Singh Saklani PGT-Geography aged about 46
Years S/o Shri Roop Lal R/O Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya Dungri, VPO DUNGRI Tehsil BHORANJ
Distt-Hamirpur Himachal Pradesh- 176045. GP - B,
2. Dr. Nitya Nand Mishra PGT-Hindi aged about 51 Years
S/o Shri Rama Kant Mishra R/O Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya Sherghati, Gaya-II Near SDM Residence
GOLA BAZAR SHERGHATI, Gaya Bihar-824211. GP-B.
3. Mrs. Chanchal Sarita PGT Commerce aged about 45
years W/o Manoj Malhotra R/O Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya, lohara near Nihal wala Moga Punjab -
142039. GP-B.
4. Mrs. Nivedita Sharma TGT Hindi aged about 49 Years
W/o Dr. Rajesh Kumar R/O Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya, Adalbari, Village Adalbari, District Baksa,
Assam, INDIA PIN-781372. GP-B.
5. Mr Sanjeeb Ku Dash PGT English aged about 43 Years
S/o Kshiroda Bihari Dash Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
BELPADA, Bolangir ODISHA 767026. GP-B.
6. Ms. Harjot Kaur Duggal TGT English aged about 57
Years W/o N.K Duggal R/o Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya, Lohara, VPO Lohara, Teh. Nihal Sigh Wala
Distt Moga 142039. GP- B.
7. Mr. Navneet Soni PGT Hindi aged about 45 Years S/o
Rameshwar Lal R/o Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya
Banswara-1, VPO- Budwa Tehsil- Bagidora Distt
Banswara, Rajasthan 327604 GP-B.
8. Mr. Sarikonda Mahesh PGT Maths aged about 44 years
S/o Venkata Narasaraju R/o Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya, Kommadi, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh
530048. GP-B.
9. Mr. Ram Kumar Barai PGT Geography aged about 56
Years S/o Halkhori Barai R/o Jawahar Navodaya
2
OANo. 3835/2022
Vidyalaya, Gaya-II SHERGHATI, PO Sherghati Distt
Gaya, Bihar 824211. GP-B.
10. Mr. Rintu Bhuyan PGT English aged about 45 Years
S/o Loknath Bhuyan R/o Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
TITABAR (Shillong Region): P.O BARUAHJAN Pin-
785630; Dist. JORHAT (ASSAM). GP-B. CAT
11. Mrs. Kunjan Kusum Dwivedi TGT Hindi aged about 45
Years W/o Raj Kumar Pandey R/o Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya, Kannauj, Anaugi, Jalalabad, Distt- Kannauj,
Uttar Pradesh 209733 GP-B.
12. Mr. Rohit Kashmiri PGT Chemistry aged about 45 Years
S/o Sh. Ramesh Kashmiri R/o Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya BASOHLI Distt KATHUA (Jammu &
Kashmir) 184201. GP-B.
13. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Malik PGT English aged about 46
Years S/o Shri Charan Singh R/o Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya, Dhungir, Purola, Uttarkashi, Uttarakhand
249185. GP-B.
14. Dr. Babu Lal Yadav PGT Hindi aged about 47 Years S/o
Shri Ram Dhari Yadav R/o Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya
II, Sarengabad, Jibantala, District South 24 Parganas,
West Bengal INDIA PIN-743376 GP-B.
15. Mr. Jayprakash Kar PGT English aged about 46 Years
S/o Sh. Haribandhu Kar R/o Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya, Goshala, P.O- Kalamati, Distt. Sambalpur
(ODISHA) Pin- 768025. GP-B.
16.Mr. Ramchandra PGT Hindi aged about 58 Years S/o
Shri Babu Ram R/o Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
Longowal Distt. Sangrur Punjab 148106. GP-B.
17. Mr. Manish Kumar PGT Commerce aged about 45 Years
S/O Vijay Kumar R/o Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
Najochak Pathankot PUNJAB-151212 GP-B.
18. Mr. Sriniwash Prasad TGT-Hindi aged about 49 Years
S/o Late Tarkeshwar Kurmi R/o Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya, Banipur, PO- Banipur PS- HABRA, Distt-
North 24 Pragnas Pin-743233 WB GP-B.
19. Mr. Satendra Kumar Saini PGT Maths aged about 52
Years S/o Shri Hukam Singh R/o Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya, POKHAL TEHRI GARHWAL, Uttarakhand
249161. GP-B.
20. Mr. Sanjeev Pandey PGT Hindi aged about 42 Years
3
OANo. 3835/2022
S/o Mahaveer Prashad Pandey R/o Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya, Dhanansu, Distt. Ludhiana (Punjab) 141112.
GP-B.
21. Mr. Nazir Ahmad PGT Biology aged about 52 Years S/o
Ghulam Nabi R/o Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
Khanpura Budgam 191111. GP-B.
22. Mr. Mohammed Arif Khan PGT English aged about
47 Years S/o Mohammed Hanif Khan R/o Jawahar
Navodaya Vidyalaya, Suratgarh Sriganga nagar-II
Rajasthan GP-B.
23. Mr. Dibakar Bera PGT Maths aged about 45 Years
S/o Bishweswar Bera R/o Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
North 24 Parganas, AT Banipur, P.O- Banipur, Dist-
North 24 Parganas, State-West Bengal-743233. GP-B.
24. Mr. Dhanpat Nayak PGT Hindi aged about 48 Years
S/o Gunsagar Nayak R/o Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
Zinc Nagar Sargipali, PO- Zinc Nagar Dist- Sundargarh
(ODISHA) 770072. GP-B.
25. Mr. Ram Pal PGT Geography aged about 46 Years
S/o sh. Inder Singh R/o Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
Sector-25 Chandigarh 160014. GP-B.
26. Dr. Lallan Singh Ex. PGT Hindi aged about 61 Years
S/o Late Sh. Tejbahadur Singh R/o Village Semara
Hardo, PO- Kathkuiyan, Padrauna, Distt Kushinagar,
Uttar Pradesh- 274303 GP-B.
27. Mr. Gyanesh Kumar Sharma PGT Mathematics aged
about 50 Years S/o Maharaj Singh Sharma R/o Jawahar
Navodaya Vidyalaya, Devrala Bhiwani, Haryana PIN
127029 GP-B.
28. Mr. Manoj Kumar Solanki TGT English aged about
44 Years S/o Pravinbhai Rio Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya, Vejalpur Kanod Taluka Kalal Distt.
Panchmahal Gujrat Pin-389340 GP-B.
29. Mr. Iliyas PGT Hindi (Now Vice-Principal) aged
about 44 Years S/o Manir Khan R/o Navodaya
Leadership Institute (NLI) Mavli Udaipur 313203. GP-
B. CAT Jaipur Bench.
30. Mrs. Anjali Minhas TGT English aged about 41
Years W/o Dinesh Minhas R/o Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya, Farour Khamano FATEGARH SAHIB
Punjab. GP-B.
4
OANo. 3835/2022
31. Mrs. Pardeep Rani PGT Maths aged about 46 Years
W/o Kuldeep Rai R/o Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
Chandigarh Pin-160014. GP-B.
32. Mrs. Gayatri Singh PGT English aged about 45 Years
W/o Surjeet Singh R/o Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
Rangiya Kamrup. GP-B.
33. Mrs. Bhawna Verma PGT English aged about
41Years W/o Pushpinder Verma R/o Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya, Amritsar-1, Pin-143603. GP-B.
34. Mr. Bhupender Sen PGT Chemistry aged about 48
Years S/o Dharam Dass Verma R/o Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya, FATEHPUR Rajputa, Patiala, Punjab-147103.
GP-B.
35. Mrs. Sarita Kumari TGT Hindi aged about 46 Years
W/o Manoj Kumar R/o Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
FATEHPUR Rajputan, Distt- Patiala, Punjab-147103.
GP-B.
36. Mrs. Dharitri Deka TGT Hindi aged about 44 Years
W/o Pankaj Kumar Pathak R/o Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya, Darrang, Udmari, PO- Tengabari, Dist-
Darrang, Pin- 784525. GP-B.
37. Mr. Jagdish Kumar Solanki TGT English aged about
46 Years S/o Shankarbhai Solanki R/o Jawahar
Navodaya Vidyalaya, At Post Sadhi Ta. Padra, Dist.
Vadodara, Gujrat 391445. GP-B.
38. Mr. Sudheer Kumar Singh PGT English aged about
45 Years S/o Late Shri Ramchandra Singh R/o Jawahar
Navodaya Vidyalaya, Jiyanpur AZAMGARH (U.P)
276140. GP-B.
39. Mr. Gourav Chug PGT Chemistry aged about 45
years S/o Santok Singh R/o Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya, Maseetan Kapurthala. GP-B.
.....Applicants
(ByAdvocate: Mr. Durgesh Kumarsharma)
5
OANo. 3835/2022
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Secretary,
Minister of Education,
Govt. of India, Sastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
2. Union of India through
The Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure,
Govt. of India, New Delhi-110001.
3. The Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya
Samiti, B-15, Institutional Area, Sector 62,
Noida (UP)
-Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Ashish Singh)
ORDER
By way of the present O.A., the applicant seeks the following relief:
a) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order as Annexure A-1 dated 17 May 2022 issued by respondent No.01 in the interest of justice.
b) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to treat the applicants at par with other candidates who were appointed in KVS through same advertisement/recruitment process and getting the benefits of Old pension Scheme 1972.
c) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to grant/extend the benefits of old CCS(Pension) scheme 1972 along with consequential benefits to applicants(01 to 39) w.e.f date of joining in NVS.
d) To award the costs for litigation expanses against the respondents in favour of applicants.
e) Any other relief or order which this Hon'ble Tribunal 6 OANo. 3835/2022 considers appropriate in applicant's favour, in the facts and circumstances of this case.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS) was established as an autonomous body under the administrative control of Deptt. of Secondary and Higher Education, Ministry of Education, to administer Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) under the scheme in the year 1985. In 2002-03, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) under the Ministry of Education published an advertisement for the post of TGT/PGT. Consequent to the same, the Applicants applied for the said posts of KVS under the impression that all the applicants would be covered under the Old Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972. Subsequently, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS) under the same Ministry published an advertisement for the recruitment of teachers under title Joint Recruitment with Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. In the said advertisement of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS) it was written that the candidates applying in response to this advertisement are eligible to be considered for the post of teachers advertised by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan.
Applicants applied in the said joint recruitment advertisement and categorically opted for KVS. Subsequently, the Applicants cleared all the examination/interview. These 39 applicants are not entitled for Old Pension Scheme, 1972, whereas, the other 7 OANo. 3835/2022 candidates who were selected through same process/advertisement and got appointed in the KVS prior to 01.01.2004 are entitled for the Old Pension Scheme. 1972. The applicants have stated that they have been recruited from the same examination/advertisement and those amongst them who have been appointed as teachers in KVS are entitled for Old Pension Scheme whereas such benefits have been denied to them which is violation of their fundamental rights. They contend that the post of PGT created in the year 2003 and all the applicants (1 to 39) joined Navodaya Vidalaya Samiti (NVS) prior to 01.01.2004. Therefore, they are entitled for Old Pension Scheme.
3. Being aggrieved from the action of the respondents, the applicants submitted representations on several occasions. Vide a letter dated 09 December 2020 competent authority of Respondent No.1 & 3 on the instructions of respondent No.02 denied to grant the old CCS (Pension) Scheme, 1972 to the applicants.
4. Consequently, applicants filed the OA No.621/2021 titled Dr. Dalbir Singh Saklani & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors. before this Tribunal and same was disposed of by this Tribunal with a direction to the respondents to finally decide the issue pertaining to the extension of pension of old pension under CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, to the employees of NVS within a 8 OANo. 3835/2022 period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of that Order. For compliance of order passed by this Tribunal, Applicants filed a Contempt Petition No. 128/2022. In consequent to this, Respondent No. 01 passed a speaking order dated 17th May 2022 in which respondents stated that the issue of extension of pensionary benefits of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 to the employees of NVS, who had joined service before 01.01.2004, has been deliberated in consultation with the concerned stakeholder Ministries /departments. However, the proposal has not been found feasible and not agreed to. Hence, this OA.
5. The applicants contend that the fundamental rights of the applicants are infringed (Article 14 & 21) by the respondents on the pretext of autonomous bodies whereas the other employees autonomous bodies are getting the benefits of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. The future of applicants as well as their family are uncertain, dark and they are compelled to live uncertain life despite of sacrifice of entire life to the NVS specially from youth period to till now. The respondents are giving false promises to the applicants for a long period and ruined their future career in other department also even the respondents has issued unreasoned, arbitrary and mechanical order as the same is unconstitutional and is not sustainable in law hence liable to be set aside as annexure A-1 (Impugned order). The Applicants are innocent, hard working employee, with an unblemished 9 OANo. 3835/2022 service record of more than 17 years, who are made to suffer at the hands of the Respondents, if they will not get the old CCS (Pension) Rule 1972. The Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (Respondent No-3) was established in the year 1985 after due sanction from the Government of India and since then it has been giving education to poor & weaker section of society in rural areas of the country and applicants being teachers have fulfilled the aims and objective of NVS by doing at par with the other employee of KVS, in efficient and effective manner but they are not treated at par with other employees/teachers. Since joining in NVS, they are performing more and more duty hence result of students of NVS are being delivered 100% in the last 15 years since to their appointment and this was because of the reason that the applicants are absolutely honest and dedicated & loyal to the NVS but same are not reciprocal on behalf of NVS. It is in the larger interest of the organization as well as nation that such honest applicants should be granted old CCS(Pension) 1972 benefits by law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
6. The respondents in their reply vehemently oppose the OA. They state that the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS), is fully funded by Government of India through Grants-in-Aid and NVS follows the rules and regulation of Central government, for appointment/recruitment, salary and service conditions of teachers, mutatis- mutandis. The demand of the NVS 10 OANo. 3835/2022 employees for implementation of the Pension Scheme under CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 was duly considered by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, however, not acceded to vide office memorandum dated 28.05.2013 is annexed and marked herewith as Annexure-R-1. Therefore, the matter was placed before the Apex body of NVS (i.e. Executive Committee in its 40th meeting held under the chairmanship Hon'ble Minister of Education on 25.02.2021, with the specific submission that the Government of India has not extended benefit of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 the employees of NVS on technical ground i.e. Samiti was not in existence on 01.01.1986, which was considered the crucial date of 4th pay commission's recommendation for extension of pension-cum-G.P.F scheme by the Government of India to the employees covered under Contributory Provide Fund Rules. They state that the demand of NVS employees of extension of pensionary benefits of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 to the employees of NVS who had joined service before 01.01.2004 has been deliberated in the Ministry of Education in consultation with the concerned stakeholder Ministries/departments. The respondents further state that in compliance of the directions of the Tribunal's order dated 22.03.2021 in OA No. 621/2021, the issues of extension of pensionary benefits of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 to the employees of NVS who had joined service before 01.01.2004 11 OANo. 3835/2022 has been deliberated. However, the proposal has not been found feasible and not agreed to.
7. The present OA has been filed by the applicants inter-alia challenging the order dated 17.05.2022 passed by Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Education (Shiksha Mantralaya) in pursuance of the directions issued by the Tribunal vide its order dated 22.03.2021 with the direction to the respondents to finally decide the issue pertaining to the extension of pension of old pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 to the employees of NVS within a period of sic months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since Ministry of Education has considered the issue of extension of pensionary benefits under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 to the employees of NVS who had joined service before 01.01.2004 but not acceded to the contentions of the applicants.
8. In rejoinder, the applicants have stated that it was Joint Recruitment and all exams (Pre-Examination, Main Examination & Interview) were conducted by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & this Joint Recruitement was fully completed in the year 2003 by Kendriyala Vidyalaya Sangathan. Applicants applied in this recruitment for KVS which was covered under 'Old Pension Scheme 1972 to the teachers recruited under this Joint Recruitment in the Year 2003 by KVS. Those who were posted/joined Kendriya 12 OANo. 3835/2022 Vidyalaya Sangatlan (KVS) are eligible for Family Pension-1972 and those who were posted/joined Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS) are not getting 'Old Pension Scheme' (OPS) though they all were recruited by the same process of Examination by KVS under Joint Recruitment in the year 2003. Even all the applicants opted for KVS but without any due process or system they were recruited in NVS. However respondents No. 01 & 03 admitted in Para 8,9,12 & 13 there is a valid authorization that's why Commissioner NVS and Ministry of Education on several occasion sent a proposal of extension of benefits of Old pension Scheme 1972 but the Ministry of Finance did not agreed for the same. It is further stated that respondents in Para No. 13 admitted that efforts will made by the NVS /Ministry of education to provide support to ensure security to employees in consultation with the Ministry of Finance.
9. The applicants have relied upon (i) the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, (ii) judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 1358/2017 in the matter of Shyam Kumar Chaudhary Vs UOI, (iii) Judgment dated 13.01.2020 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. Civil No 337/2020 titled as Vikash Kumar & Ors Vs UOI & Ors, (iv) the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P Civil No. 756/2020 in Dr. Davinder Singh Brar Vs UOI & Ors in the order 13 OANo. 3835/2022 dated 28.01.2020, (v) the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P (C) No. 3834/2013 titled as Parmanand Yadav Vs UOI & Ors in the order dated 12.02.2015, (vi) the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P Civil No. 6680/2017 titled as Tanka Ram Vs UOI in the order dated 12.02.2019 and in this matter SLP CC Diary No. 25228/2019 UOI & Ors Vs Tanka Ram, (vii) the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Niraj Kumar Singh Vs UOI & Ors in W.P Civil No 13129/2019, (viii) the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kallakkarichi Taluk Retired Official Associations Vs State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 2 SCC 772, in All Manipur Pensioners Associations Vs State of Manipur in CA No. 10857/2016 decided on 11.07.2019, (ix) the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in State of UP & Ors Vs Arvind Kumar Srivastav & Ors in SCC(347) 2015, (x) the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaipal v. State of Haryana, in 1988 AIR 1504, (xi) the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in D.S. Nakara and Ors. Vs. Union of India. in 1983 AIR 130.
10. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and examined the pleadings filed in the matter. Learned counsel for the respondents state that the matter is barred by estoppel as the applicants have joined NVS fully well knowing that there is no pension scheme prevailing in the organization. On the other hand learned counsel 14 OANo. 3835/2022 argue for parity with KVS as applicants were selected in the notification for appointment in the KVS.
11. In the year 2002-2003, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sansgathan (KVS) published an advertisement for the post of TGT/PGT. All the applicants applied for the post. The applicants contend that they applied for the post under the impression that all the applicant would be covered under the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 and the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) will be applicable to them. Subsequently, NVS published an advertisement for recruitment of teacher jointly with KVS. NVS advertisement stated that the candidates applying in response to their advertisement are eligible to be considered for post of teachers advertised by the KVS. Applicants were selected and some of the applicants joined prior to 01.01.2004 while some other joined after 01.01.2004. Recruitment process was completed before 01.01.2004. It is clear from the pleadings that NVS does not have Old Pension Scheme. This has been the situation today. As stated by the applicants and as mentioned above in this Para that they were under the impression that all applicants would be covered under Old Pension Scheme (OPS), is not based on facts and situation prevailing at the time of their joining. If setting pension was the main consideration of their joining NVS, they should not have joined as Old Pension Scheme was not applicable to them. Even the appointment letter of the applicants while appointing them in NVS does not indicate that Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 will be applicable on them. Therefore, it is an after thought 15 OANo. 3835/2022 on the part of the applicants to state that they joined NVS under the impression that they will be entitled to pension under OPS.
12. Para 12 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in W.P.(S) No. 4946 of 2008 dated 02.03.2012 in the matter of P.N. Mishra Vs. The Union of India & Ors.:
"14. It is a settled principle of law that cut of date of notification of pensionary scheme is within domain of the employer and is not subject to interference ordinarily unless it is arbitrary and unreasonable and some gross case of violation of Article 14 is made out. It would be profitable to quote the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on the choice of cut of date in the matter of grant of benefit of pension etc. on an employee by his employer. Reference may be made to the judgment delivered in the case of Sudhir Kumar Consul Vrs. Allahabad Bank, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 486 which is as follows:-
"18. Moreover, the fixing of the cut-off date for granting retirement benefits such as gratuity or pension under the different schemes incorporated in the subordinate legislation, thereby, creating two distinct and separate classes of employees is well within the ambit of Article 14 of the Constitution. The differential treatment of two sets of officers appointed price to the notified date would not offend Article 14 of the Constitution. The cut-off date may be justified on the ground that additional outlay as involved or the fact that under the terms of appointment, the employee was not entitled to the benefit of pension or retirement.
22. In All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers' Assn. v. Union of India, the Retired Officers' Association of Reserve Bank of India questioned the validity of introduction of pension scheme in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The bank employees, who retired prior to 1-1-1986, had not been given benefit of the said Pension Scheme. This Court held that the said cut-off date was neither arbitrary nor artificial or whimsical. It was further observed: (SCC pp. 677-78, para 10)
10. The underlying principle is that when the State decides to revise and liberalise an existing pension scheme with a view to augmenting the social security cover granted to pensioners, it cannot ordinarily grant the benefit to a section of the pensioners and deny the same to others by drawing an artificial cut-off line which cannot be justified on rational grounds and is wholly unconnected with the object intended to be achieved. But when an employer introduces an entirely new scheme which has no connection with the existing scheme, different considerations enter the decision making process. One such consideration may be the financial implications of the scheme and the extent of capacity of the employer to bear the burden. Keeping in view its capacity to absorb the financial burden that the scheme would throw, the employer would have to decide upon the extent of applicability of the scheme."16 OANo. 3835/2022
23. In UGC Sadhana Chaudhary this Court has observed: (SCC p. 546, para 21) "21. It is settled law that the choice of a date as a basis for classification cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice unless it is shown to be capricious or whimsical in the circumstances. When it is seen that a line or a point there must be and there is no mathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, the decision of the legislature or its delegate must be accepted unless it can be said that it is very wide off the reasonable mark."
30. In State of Bihar v. Bihar Pensioners Samaj this Court held: (SCC p. 71, para 17) "17. We think that the contention is well founded.
The only ground on which Article 14 has been put forward by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the fixation of the cus-off date for payment of the revised benefits under the two notifications concerned was arbitrary and it resulted in denying arrears of payments to certain sections of the employees. This argument is no longer res integra. It has been held in a catena of judgments that fixing of a cut-off date for granting of benefits is well within the powers of the Government as long as the reasons therefore are not arbitrary and are based on some rational consideration."
15. From the discussion of the case of the parties made herein above it is clear that the new pension scheme has come into force w.e.f. 1.1.2004 upon a conscious decision of the employers i.e. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on approval of the Government of India in the year 2008. The petitioner has not been able to show any grounds for tresting the said cut of date as arbitrary. unreasonable and irrational or in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The mere fact that other institutions had been governed by different pensionary schemes since earlier point of time will not entitle the petitioner to claim that the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti is legally obliged to follow the same as it is an autonomous body, admittedly framed under the Societies Registration Act. As such even the employees in service prior to 1.1.2004 have been granted benefits to switch over to the new scheme as per the provisions of the scheme. Sympathies have no place in a society governed by the Rule of law as been eminently observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 31 the judgment delivered in the case of Sudhir Kumar Consul Vrs. Allahabad Bank (Supra) which is as follows:-
"31. We have sympathies for the appellant but, in a society governed by the rule of law, sympathies cannot override the Rules and Regulations. We may recall the observations made by this Court while considering the issue of compassionate appointment in public service".
16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the factual position discussed above, we are of the considered view that the writ petitioner has failed to make out a case for issuance of any direction or mandamus upon the respondents in the manner prayed by him in para 1 of the writ petition.
17. The writ petition is without any merit and accordingly, dismissed."
17OANo. 3835/2022
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appellate Jurisdiction in Civil Appeal Nos. 712-713 of 2015 in the case of T.M. Sampath & Ors. Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources & Ors. with Civil Appeal Nos. 714-715 of 2015 in the case of S.C. Awasthi & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. and Civil Appeal No. 716 of 2015 in the case of P.N. Mishra Vs. Union of India & Ors. and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 556 of 2012 in the case of All India Navodaya Vidyalaya Staff Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 518 of 2012 in the case of S. Kannan and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. held in Paras 25, 26 & 38 as under:
"25. The Respondents have contended that the JNVS was not in existence at the time of cut-off date applicable under the O.M. dated 01.05.1987 and also that the employees of the JNVS cannot claim as of a right to be governed by the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 as they are not employees of the Central Government.
26. It is undisputed fact that the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti was established and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 only on 28-02-1986, so its employees cannot be in service as on 01- 01-1986. Thus, while first condition is disputed, the second condition is clearly not fulfilled. In contrast, the KVS was established in 1965. Therefore, we find merit in the argument of the learned Additional Solicitor General that the said O.M. cannot apply to the NVS employees.
38. We have carefully perused the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand in W.P. 4946 of 2008 against which SLP(C) No.19102/2012 has been filed and we concur with the view of the High Court. The cut-off date is a domain of the employer and so the introduction of new scheme of pension will be done considering all the relevant factors including financial viability of the same. No interference is warranted unless there is gross injustice is perpetrated. The Appellants have failed to prove any arbitrariness and discrimination with respect to the New Pension Scheme."18 OANo. 3835/2022
(Rajinder Kashyap) Member(A) /ks/