Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Indranil Chakraborty vs M/O Defence on 25 July, 2022
Be M EL. to CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA Date of Order: 25.07.2022 O.A. No. 350/483/2020 Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member Hon'ble Dr. (Ms.) Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member In the matter of : ~ INDRANIL CHAKRABORTY, aged about 42 years, son of Late Balaram | Chakraborty the Ex-High Skill Grade-1 Examiner of Gun & Shell Factory, Cossipore, Dum Dum, Kolkata who retired from service on the ground of permanently medically unfit by the Medical Board and who died in harness due to long suffering _ Of Paralysis on 25.12.2007, residing at 13/A, A.P.C. Road, New Barrackpore, Post Office New Barrackpore, Police Station-Ghola, District-24-Parganas (North), seseeenee Applicant -Versus- 1. UNION OF INDIA service through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, .. (Production), South Block, New Delhi-110001; 2. THE CHAIRMAN, Ordnance Factory Board, 10A Shaheed Khudiram Bose Road Kolkata, 700001; / 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, Gun & Shell Factory, Cossipore, Dum Dum, Kolkata-700002 beeaens Respondents For The Applicant(s): Mr. P. C. Das, Ms. T Maity; Counsel For The Respondent(s): Mr. S. Paul, 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}Ta pass ar-appropriate arder directing upon ihe respondent authority urtie the fight of ihe order doted 37th Merch, 2027 passed by the Division Bendh.af ths Hobie High Court of Reiff at New Delhi ie WIP (CY No. 2020/2018 it the case of Inspentor Rajendra Singh & others-ve-Linlon-of india end athers being Annexure A- 9 af this anginal application and in the light of the office memo dated I F028. 2080 oni subsequent affice memo dotedt 25.06.2020 issued by the Department of Personnel & Troining New Oelht being Ansexure Ast and Ad? of this original agotisation, the applicant should be dllnwed to exercised Als option by supplying the requisite forms ta convert NBS Scheme io C68 (Pension) Rules, 1272 In terons of his representation dated 26:05,2020 ond to supply the requisite forms by tie apicent in.cecordaace with the jatest office oteme dated 250) Aime, 2020 issued bythe GoPRT being Annexure Add of dicorigina! opplicntion ont-afier exercising such aption ir view of the decision af the Hor ble Gelhi High Court ad theoffice memes dated 17.02.2020 aid 25.06.2020, the applicant's service should be govnened vader Oly Pension Scheme underCCs (Pension) Rules, 1972 and. te deduet the GPF ond other deductions it necordonce with the law from the soley af the apglicane offer governed him under Old Pension Scheme under CC5 { Pension} fules, 1972) fa declare thot the action of the respondent authority nor complying wills the uffice memodated 17.02.2020 gid subsequent office meme dated 25.05.2020 issued by the Oepariment of Rarsonnel & Trofdag, New Delt? dad alsa by not complying wilh the order doted 27th March, 2017 possed by the Division Bench of the Hoer'ile High Court of Deli at Nes Deiblin WE fC) Bla. OL O/2018 by nat allowing the applicant for exercising his option for governing his gader Old Pension Scheme under CCS /Penwan} Rules, 19708 wholly.o discriminotory eagnent of the applicant by the respandent-authorly whick wholly arbitrary and bod Ista ond alse violates the Articles I and 6 of the Constitution af india."
3. The applicant herein was called for an interview on 26.30.1998 for appointment on compassionate grounds to 4 Group 'C' post but was given appointment, at the behest of the Hon'ble Caleutta High Court, on 09.04.2014 against the vacancies that arose inthe year 1999.
A. At hearing, Ld. Counsel for applicant would vociferously argue that, since the vacancies in question arose long before the New Pension Scheme was effected, Le. before 01.01.2004, with an implied promise of coverage under old rules, but the offer of appointment could 'only : be :
issued after 01.01.2004 on aecount of delay caused by. the concerned authorities, his client should be covered by the Old Pension Rules of 1972, | im terms of the DOPT notification dated 17.02.2020.
Further in support, Ld. Counsel would cite the decision of the Honble High Court ab 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 01.01.2004 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 m law.
Ld. Counsel for applicant would also.place the decision af Homble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Shabad Prakash Punia SLP (CG) ° No. 7873/2021 and batch cases where the petitioners who had applied pursuant to the notification dated September, 20038 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 2008, sought for benefits under Old Pension Scheme under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, whereas, the New Contributory Pension Scheme that was intreduced by a notification dated 22nd December, 2003, and implemented with effect from Ist January, 2004, was applied.
Hon'ble Court found that the batch mates of the mast of the petitioners have been given the benefits of Old Pension Scheme under various judgments passed by the Court as under:
'a Patil Gopal Babulal & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors, W.P. {C} 11646 /2018;
ay Tanaka Ram & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors, 2019 (274) DRI 146 (DBs (iQ Shyam Kumar Choudhary and Ors. vs. Union of India being WP. (C _} No. 1358 of 2017 and iv] Niraj] Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors, we. (Cj No. 13129/2019.
The Hon'ble Court therein held ag under? "8. The issue in the present bateh of matters is na longer res integra. Consequently, the request jor additional time tofile counter-affidavid ty dectined, BS8y;
Pag, w, 4a % in the case of certain constables of tre BSP, this Court by its Jadament deted 12° February, 2019 in Tanaka Ram fsupra} allowed the prayer of those Petitionsrs and permitted them to avail af the benefit of the Old Pensian Scheme, Itsvas feist that the option to continue the Old Reasion scheme should be extended to olf thase whe has been selected in the examination conducted in 2002, but were issued call letters oniy in fanuary ar February, 2004. It balsa pertinent fo mention that the Respandents aggrieved by the seid judiiment Pled an SLP bearing No. 23220 /2019 hefere the Apex Court The said SLP hes heen dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 02° september, 2073, Te This Court in Shgam Kumar Choudhary and Ors, vs, Union of India being WAP. (0) No, 1358 of L017 allowed similar petitions vide fadgmant dated oof April, 2012 against which the Respandents had again filed SLP hearing no, 319392019 which was again dismissed an 27" September, 2019, The Respondents theredfter chose to file a --
review petition bearing no, 2188/2020 before the Apex Court in the said matter and the said Review petition was alzo dismissed on merits videorder dated 24° Noventber, 2020.
an allaeing the judgment of Shyam Kumar Choudhary {supra}, thee learned predacessor Division Bench in Niraj Kumar Singh and Grs. Vs. Union of tulia & Ors WPACH No. 13129/2029 granted similar benejit to 17 petitioners who had applied fo the post of Sub-Inspector in Central Police Organisations pursucné co an advertisement dated 27% fune, 2003 eves when the writtes eraminadion ang physical efictangy text were hele i November, 2003, medical exnmination was held dy January-February, 2004 and final result wes declared in May, 2004. "Phe said 17 petitioners were issued affer of appointment an 02" Jung, 2005 and an accepting the same, the appointment fetter war"
issued on 14@ Jus 2008 for joining the Sashastra Seema Bal, a 12, . Another Coordinate Bench vide judgment dated O8* November, 2020 fn WPYC) No. 6549 of 2020 ng well as 6989/2020 was pleased t allow the suid petitio ns for great of Old Pension Scheme hy following the judgment in Shyam Kumar Choudkary (supra).
im Having regard te the fect that in the present boech of cases also the advertisement notificatiin wos keued in September, 2008 and fans 2003 fe prian to coming inte force of bie present contributory pensiog schente an geet December, 2003, this Court is ef the view that petitioners cannat be deprived of the benefit of the Old 14 This is mere se when the batchmates of the petitioners are getting this benefit under various judgments passed by this Gauré is. For he abave reasons, the petitioners are allowed, Respondents are directed to extend the benefit of Old Pension Scheme io cack of these PeGGioners and. pass consequential orders within a perlod of eight weeks fram today.
TS, Accordingly, the writ petitions along with pending agplications stand disposed of 28 The decision was rendered on 15.01.2021 by the Hon'ble High Sout at New Delhi and the decision in one of such Writ Petitions bearing No. WP (C)9252/2020, was assailed before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 7373/2081 but the SLP was dismissed on 09.07.2021.
8. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the applicant would vaciferously contend that the issue has attained a finality that, where the Vacandes arose and the notification to fill up vacancies was published before 01.01.2004, the recruitment process was also initiated, 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 O.A. 1815 of 2091 (Prem Kumar Vs SE Railway) and analogous matters which is taken om record. Ld. Counsel would further furnish a communication of the Ministry of Law and Justice (Departmen x reproduced as under' Affairs) dated 06.05.2022 which SW AK << SS WS SS SS aS ~ S ~ os CK ey i:
yy SS :
Yi Coo WN Tribunal in » of Legal
--
.
SS SAA SERN AEG SS Ld. Counsel. for respondents would fairly agree that the matter ean be remanded hack to the authorities for a fresh consideration in the light of the above communication, ag well as the decision in Inspeetor Rajendra Singh & Org. vs, UOT & Ors., 38 we referred to supra.
las in Shabad Prakash Punia & Ors. vs. UOT & Ore, Therefore, the instant O.A. js hereby be disposed of with a direction apen the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the applicant dated 26.05.2020 (at Annexure A-8 fo 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 devisions and relevant communication ated supra and to pass an appropriate order within. 8 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. in The O.A., acrerdingly, stands disposed of. No costs. pence genes pane t BN (Nandita Chatterjee) | (Bidisha Ba nerjee) Member (A) Member () _