Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Pradyut Roy vs Eastern Railway on 18 April, 2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA Date of Order: 18.04.2022 O.A. No. 350/483/2022 Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member In the matter of -
Pradyut Roy, Son of Bimal Kumar Roy, aged about 44 years, working as Track Maintainer IV, BMG, residing at Vill.- West Bauria, P.O.-
Chackashi, Dist. Howrah, Pin-
711307 (Mob. No.- 9830398127) | ret 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.
vesteee Respondents _ For The Applicant(s): Mr. A. Chakraborty, Ms. P. Mondal Counsel For The Respondent(s): Ms. D. Ghosh Dastidar, Counsel ORDER(ORALD Per: Ms. Bidisha Banerjee. Member @) Heard Ld. Counsels for both sides.
2. This application has been preferred to seek the following relief:
*fa} An order do issue directing the respondent nos. a and 2 te issue directions to the Competent Authority to grant scope of switching aver to Old pension Scheme ia favour of the applicant on immediate basis for extending and effecting coverage of his case under Ce tral Services (Pension}Rule 1972 in plece of National Pension System at oo earliest.
{bh} To-grant Costs and incidentals.
fe) Any other arder or arders as the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper. "
This matter is taken up by Single Bench in view of the revised ist dated 04.04.2000 issued under Sub-Section (@) of Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and, as mo 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 againgt a doint Employment Notice bearing no. BR/T/2001 SPL by the Eastern Railway foxy which he appeared in the Written test, as well ag in PET, in the month of July and December respectively in the year 2003. The applicant was thereafter declared successful and the selection process W as completed before a 01.01.2004 when the Old Pension Scheme was in effect. However, he was offered appointment only after O1.01.2004, 1.6. on 01.19.2004, when. the New Pension Scheme came into effect.
4. At hearing, Ld. Counsel for applicant would vacifercusly argue that, since the vacancies in question arose before the notification. was - asned 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 G1.01.2004, but the ordera could only be issued after OLOLZO04 on account of delay caused by the
a) concerned authorities, his client should be covered by the Old Pension Rules of 1872, 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) Ne. 2810/2016 in the case of Inspector Rajendra Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors. rendered on 27.03.2017 wherein the petitioners who were recruited after 01.01.2004, against yacancies that cecurred 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 in law. Lad. Counsel for applieant would also place the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Shabad Prakash Punia SLP (©) No. 7373/2021 and bateh eases where the petitioners who had applied pursuant to the notification dated September, 2008 and June, 2003 for the post of Constable/GD im Central Armed Police Forces and Sub- Inspectors through Staff Selection. Commission, and had qualified in the said examination of 2003, sought for benefita 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, 3008, and implemented with effect from Ist January, 2004, was applied.
Hon'ble Court found that the bateh 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:
2 Patil Gopal Babulal & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors,, WP. (C) 11646 f2018;
Ci} Tanaka Ram & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., 2019 (174) DR] 146 (DB);
(i) Shyam Kumar Choudhary and Ors. vs. Union of India being W.P. (C ) No. 1358 of 2017 and {iv} Niraj Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors, W.P. (C } No. 13129/2019, The Hon'ble Court therein held as under' *. The issue ii the present batch of matters is no longer res integra, Consequently, the request for additional time to file counter-affidavit ts declined,
9. In the case of certain constables of the BSF, this Court by its jiudgment dated 12"
Fedrwory, 2019 in Tanake Ram (supra) allowed the prayer of those Petitioners and permitted them to avail of the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme, it was held thar the option te continue the Gld Pension Scheme should be extended to all those whe has, beer selacted in Hie examination conducted in 2803, but were issued call letters only in January or February, 2004, it ts also pertinent te mention that the Respondents aggritved 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 02™ September, 2012, eGR KD 10. This Court in Shyam Kumar Choudhary and Ops. vs. Union of India being = Se W.P.(C) No. 1358 of 2017 allowed similar petitions vide judgment dated 09% April, 2012 against which the Respondents had again filed SLP bearing no. 31535/2019 which was again dismissed on 27% September, 2019. The Respondents thereafter chose to Alea 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 24" Navember, 2920:
iL, Following the judgment of Shyam Kumar Choudhary (oupra}, the learned predecessor Division Bench in. Niraj Kiwnar Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of india & Ors. W.PAC) Ne. 12129/2019 granted similar benejit ta 17 petitioners whe had applied to the post of Sub-lnspectar in Central Police Organisations pursuant to an advertisement dated 21% june, 2002 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 fune, 2005 and on accepting the same, the appointment letter was issued on 14 July, 2005 for joining the Sashastra Seema Bal.
12. Another Coordinite Beach vide judgment dated 06% November; 2020 in. WP{C} No. 6548 of 2620 as well as 6989/2020 was pleased to allaw the said petitions for grant of Old Pension Scheme hy following the judgmentin Shyam Kumar Choudhary {supra).
feuacs a3. Having regard to the fact that in the present batch of cases also the advertisementénatification was issued in Sentember. 2003 and June, 2003 te enor fo coming into force of the present contributory pension. scheme on 22°¢ December, 2003, this Court is of the view thet petitioners cannot be deprived of the benefit of the Olg Pension schenie.
14, This is more go when the batchniates of the petitioners are getting this benefit under verious judgments passed by this Court. id. For the above reasons, the petitioners are allowed. Respondents are {rected to extend the benefit of Old Pension Scheme to each of these Petitioners and puss consequential orders within @ period of eight weeks from today. 16, Accordingly, the writ petitions alang 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 in one of such Writ Petitions bearing No. WP (()9252/2020, was assailed before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 7873/2021 but the SLP was dismissed on 09.07.2021, Sew AAA ET SSSSSSSSS SSS ARRAS SY &, Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the applicant would vociferously contend that the issue hag attained a finality that, where the vacancies arose and the notification to fill wp vacancies was published before O1.01 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 ie "| matters which is taken on record.
4G x we of x
6. Ld. Counsel for respondents would fairly agree that the matter ean be remanded back to the authorities for a fresh consideration in the light of the decision in Inspector Rajendra Singh & Ors. vs, VOI & 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 10.06.2020 (at Annexure AS 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 ard to pass an appropriate order within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
i. The O.A., accordingly, stands disposed of. No costs, (Bidisha Banerjee) Member GD U3