Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Sukdeb Hait vs Posts on 31 August, 2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA Date of Order: 3#.01.2023 Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member _ Hon' ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member O.A.No. 849 of 2022 - Sukdeb Tait Vs. '1. Union of India, service through the Secretary, Department of Post, 'Ministry of Communication, New Delhi -- 110001;
2. Chief Post Master General, West Bengal Circle, Yogayog Bhawan, C.R. Avenue, -
Kolkata-700012;
3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,Midnapur Division, a Midnapur-721301 With O.A.No. 1956 of 2022 - Emdadul Haque O.A.No.1860 of 2021 - Swapan Kumar Mishra O.A.No.51 of 2022 - S.K. Salim O.A.No. 848 of 2022 - Ramkrishna Roy Vs, Union of India & Others ( Department of Posts) For the Applicant(s) : = Mr. A. Chakraborty, counsel ~ Mr. Arpa Chakraborty, counsel Mr. Arghya Chakraborty, counsel Ms. P. Mondal, counsel , For the respondents: Mr.S, Chakraborty, counsel Mir, P.N. Sharma, counsel Mr. S.K. Ghosh, counsel Mr. S. Banerjee, counsel oP d . a ORDER.
Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member Heard Ld. Counsels for both sides.
2. The applicants herein had joined various posts against in the Postal Department after 01.01.2004 though the recruitment process 'for: their posts started in the year 2003 against the vacancies arose before 01.01.2004. The grievance of the applicants is that they were not allowed to switch over to Old Pension Scheme as they joined after 01.01.2004.
8. At hearing, the applicants' counsel would contend that the applicants should be covered under the Old Pension Scheme as per the DoPT.O.M. dated 17.02.2020. Ld. Counsel for applicants would vociferously argue that, the vacancies against which the applicants were appointed arose before 01.01.2004 with an implied promise of coverage under old pension rules, but the orders could only be issued after 01.01.2004, ie. after the introduction of New Pension Scheme (NPS in short), therefore, they should be covered by the Old Pension Rules of 1972, in terms of the DOPT notification dated 17.02.2020 itself. In support, Ld. Counsel would also 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 08.2017 wherein the petitioners who were recruited after 01.01.2004, against vacancies that occurred before 01.04:2004 were declared as eminently entitled to be covered by the Old Pension Rules and that bringing them into the ambit of New Pension Scheme of 2004 in bad in law. Ld. Counsel for applicants would further place the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Shabad Prakash Punia SLP (C) No. 7373/2021 and batch cases where the petitioners who had applied .
: L pursuant to the notification dated September, 2008 and June, 2008 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, 1972, whereas, the New Contributory Pension Scheme that was introduced by a notification dated. 22nd December, 2003, and implemented with effect from 1st 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
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv) / - various judgments passed by the Court as under:
Patil Gopal Babulal & Ors. vs. Union of India & ors, W.P. (C) 11646/2018;
Tanaka Ram & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., 2019 (174) DR] 146 (DB); | Shyam Kumar Choudhary and Ors. vs. Union of India being W.P. (C) No. 1358 of 2017 and ; Niraj Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C ) No. 13129/2019.
The Hon'ble Court therein held as under:
"8. The issue in the present batch of matters | is no longer res:integra. Consequently, the request for additional time to file counter- -affidavit i ts declined.
9, ° In the case.of certain constables of the BSF, this Court by its judgment dated 12% February, 2019 in Tanaka Ram (supra) allowed the prayer of those Petitioners and permitted them to avail of the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme. It was held that the option.to continue the Old Pension Scheme should be extended to all those who has been selected in the examination conducted in 2003, but were issued call letters only in January _ or February, 2004. It is also pertinent to mention that the Respondents aggrieved by the said judgment filed an SLP bearing No. 25228/2019 before the Apex Court. The said SLP has been dismissed by. the Supreme Court vide order dated 0294 September, 2019..
1 0. "This Court in Shyam Kumar Choudhary and Ors. vs. Union of India being 'W.P.(C) No, 1358 of 2017 allowed similar petitions vide judgment dated 09% April, 2019 against which the Respondents had again filed SLP bearing no. 31539/2019 which was again dismissed on 27 September, 2019, The Respondents. thereafter chose to file a review petition bearing no: 2188/2020 before the Apex Court in the said matter and the said Review petition was also dismissed on merits vide order dated 24th November, 2020.
a
11. Following. the judgment of Shyam Kumar Choudhary (supra), the learned 'predecessor Division Bench in Niraj Kumar Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.,W.P.(C) No. 13129/2019 granted similar benefit to 17 petitioners who had applied to the post of Sub-Inspector in Central Police Organisations pursuant to an advertisement dated 215 June, 2003 even when the written examination and physical efficiency test were held in November, 2003, medical examination was held in January-February, 2004 and final result was declared in May, 2004. The said 17 petitioners were issued offer of appointment on 02"4 June, 2005 and-on accepting the same, the appointment letter was issued on 14% July, 2005 for joining the Sashastra Seema Bal.
12. Another Coordinate Bench vide judgment dated 06% November, 2020 in W.P.(C) No. 6548 of 2020 as well as 6 989/2020 was pleased to allow the said petitions for. grant of Old Pension Scheme by following the judgment in Shyam Kumar Choudhary (supra).
13, Having regard to the fact that in the present batch of cases also the advertisement/notification was-issued_in September, 2003 and fune, 2003 ie. prior to coming into force of the present contributory pension scheme on 22°¢ December, 2003, 'this Court is of the view that petitioners cannot be deprived of the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme.
14, This is more so when the batchmates of the petitioners are getting this benefit under various judgments passed by this Court.
15. For the' above reasons, the petitioners are allowed. Respondents are directed to extend the benefit of Old Pension Scheme to each of these Petitioners and pass consequential orders within Q Period of eight: weeks from today..
16. Accordingly, the writ petitions along with pending applications stand disposed of."
'The decision was rendered on 15.01.2021 by. the Hon'ble High | Court at New Delhi and the decision i: in one of such Writ Petitions bearing | No. WP (C)9252/2020, was assailed before the Hon'ble Apex Court i in SLP No. 7373/2021 but'the SLP was dismissed on 09.07.2021. 4, | Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the applicants would 'vociferously contend that the issue has attained a finality that, where the vacancies arose and the notifiction, to 'fill up vacancies was published before
01. 01. 2004, the recruitment process was also initiated 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.
5. Ld. Counsel for respondents would fairly agree that the matter can be remanded back to the authorities for a fresh consideration i in the light of the decision i in Inspector Rajendra Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors. as well as Shabad Prakash Punia & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors. as referred to surpa.
6. In view of the above, the OAs are disposed of with a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider the grievance of the applicants in the light of the decisions cited supra and to pass an appropriate order within a time frame of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 7} | oe (Suchitto Amar Das) | (Jayesh V..Bhairavia) Administr.
ive Member Judicial Member sb