Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
N.K. Tripathi vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 12 January, 2015
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
T.A.No.50/2013
Monday, this the 12th day of January 2015
Honble Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J)
Honble Mr. V.N. Gaur, Member (A)
N.K. Tripathi
s/o Mr. B P Tripathi
r/o VPO Akbar Pur
Sonepat, Haryana
..Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Narender Mukhi)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary
5th Floor, A Wing
Indraprastha Secretariat
Player Bhawan, IP Estate
New Delhi
2. Delhi Energy Development Agency
(DEDA), through its Chairperson
6th Floor, C Wing, Indraprastha
Secretariat
Player Bhawan, IP Estate
New Delhi
3. Secretary, Service Department-II
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Indraprastha Secretariat
5th Floor, A Wing
Player Bhawan, IP Estate
New Delhi
4. Sr. A.O. (Pension)
Principal Accounts Office
Pension Cell, A Block
Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi-2
..Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Vijay Pandita)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj:
Facts of the case sans relevant details are that the applicant was redeployed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in Government of NCT of Delhi in terms of the order dated 9.8.2010 w.e.f. 9.7.2009. In the present T.A. filed by him as W.P. (C) No.5445/2012 before the Honble High Court of Delhi, a direction is sought to be issued to the respondents to allot him the GPF number under the old Pension Scheme and allow him to deposit the employees contribution in the Government account.
2. Mr. Narender Mukhi, learned counsel for applicant referred to the provisions of the redeployment order and submitted that though the applicant might not be entitled to the benefits of the services rendered by him in Delhi Energy Development Agency (DEDA) for the purposes of seniority but in other service matters, he was to be treated as employee of the Government of NCT of Delhi as appointed by transfer in the public interest. According to him, since the induction of the application in the services of Government of NCT of Delhi is as a transferee, he should be treated as Delhi Government employee with effect from his appointment as Demonstrator in DEDA on regular basis w.e.f. 29.3.1993 and should be given all such benefits, which were admissible to the employee who joined the service of Delhi Government with effect from the said date.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Vijay Pandita, learned counsel for respondents espoused that when the applicant joined the services of Government of NCT of Delhi only w.e.f. 9.7.2009, he will be treated as fresh appointee from the said date with such benefits as are admissible to redeployed staff and when there was no pension scheme applicable to the employees of DEDA, the applicant cannot claim any superior status after being adjusted in the services of Government of NCT of Delhi.
4. Relying upon the judgment of Honble High Court of Delhi in Ashok Mudgal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & others (W.P. (C) No.12246/2009 with connected petition) decided on 14.7.2010, the learned counsel submitted that the issue involved in the present T.A. is no longer res integra and has already been addressed to by the Honble High Court of Delhi in the said judgment.
5. To meet the stand taken by the learned counsel for applicant that the identically situated persons were given pensionary benefits in Government of NCT of Delhi, the respondents filed additional affidavit dated 30.10.2014 explaining therein that the administrative department was directed to withdraw the benefits given to Mr. Anand Singh Rawat and in terms of order dated 13.10.2014 the benefits have been withdrawn.
6. We heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
7. In CCS (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990, it has been provided that the fixation of seniority and pay of the surplus employee and counting of his previous service for various other purposes and carrying over of lien/classification in the new post to which he is appointed on redeployment under the rules should be regulated in accordance with the instructions issued from time to time by the Government of India. Rule 9 reads thus:-
9. Fixation of pay and seniority, counting of previous service for various other purposes and carrying over of lien/classification. The fixation of seniority and pay of the surplus employee and counting of his previous service for various other purposes and carrying over of lien/classification in the new post to which he is appointed on redeployment under the rules shall be regulated in accordance with the instructions issued from time to time by the Government of India in this behalf.
8. In paragraph 11 of the instructions referred to in Rule 9 above, the benefit of past service after redeployment/readjustment admissible to redeployed staff has been enumerated thus:-
11.0 BENEFIT OF PAST SERVICE AFTER REDEPLOYMENT / READJUSTMENT AS THE CASE MAY BE 11.1 No change is contemplated in the present policy that the past service rendered prior to redeployment should not count towards seniority, in the new organization / new post which a surplus employee joins after he is redeployed. The same rule will also have to be applied in the case of those readjusted after redeployment.
11.2 As at present, the surplus employees will be treated to have been appointed by transfer in public interest in the matter of admissibility of Joining Time. Joining Time Pay and Transfer TA for moving to the new post located in a Central Government Department.
11.3 A surplus employee who is permanent will enjoy protection of lien when redeployed / readjusted in a new organization.
11.4 In other service matters, they will be treated as appointed by transfer.
11.5 The surplus employees have the option to retain their existing classification if they are redeployed in posts carrying lower classification. This facility will continue to be extended.
9. From the aforementioned, it is apparent that a redeployed employee cannot be treated as appointed in the new Organization from the date of his initial appointment in the Department from where he is declared surplus. Further, as submitted by the learned counsel for respondents, the issue involved in the present T.A. is, in all fours, of the Judgment passed by the Honble High Court in Ashok Mudgals case (supra). Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment read thus:-
9. The Tribunal had taken note of all the contentions raised before it, which have also been raised before this Court, but has not been able to convince itself of the submissions made. The relevant observations made by the Tribunal are reproduced hereunder:-
"13. Contention has been raised on behalf of the Applicants that the employees who were junior to them in DEDA but who joined the government on redeployment earlier than them have been given the advantage of old pension scheme. It is only because of fortuitous circumstances of their redeployment under the government before 1.01.2004, they have been able to get the benefit of old pension scheme and GPF scheme. The employees who were redeployed after 1.01.2004 are senior to many of the employees who were redeployed before 1.01.2004 and only on the basis of such accident of circumstances they cannot be discriminated and not given the benefit of old pension scheme. It was also contended that the Applicants are not responsible for delay in redeployment under the government. It is the responsibility of DEDA and GNCTD. In our considered opinion, the Applicants cannot allege discrimination vis-a- vis their juniors who became part of the old pension scheme by virtue of joining the service under the government before 1.01.2004 and also before the Applicants, who are senior to them. The right of the employees for enjoying service conditions including pension applicable to those who joined the government after 1.01.2004 have not been denied to them. The Applicants have been given the benefit of pension scheme albeit it is the new pension scheme applicable after 1.01.2004. The crucial date of application of pension scheme would be the date of their joining the government. Since they have joined the government after 1.01.2004, they cannot be given advantage of the old pension scheme retrospectively. The appointment by transfer has not given the Applicants the benefit of appointment from a retrospective date. It would be an appointment only from the date they have joined the service of the government. Under these circumstances, notwithstanding that the employees junior to the Applicants have got the benefit of old pension scheme, the Applicants would not be entitled for induction in old pension scheme and GPF scheme retrospectively. We cannot give any relief to the Applicants, in view of the clear provisions of Rules, in spite of the fact that juniors have got the advantage of old pension scheme. The fact that the Applicant in OA 593/2008 was initially in pensionable scheme also would not make any difference because the Applicant on his own volition had joined an autonomous body and his appointment on transfer also would be treated as appointment from the date on which he joined the service of the government. It cannot make him entitled for retrospective application of pension rules in his case also.
14. We have also considered the letter dated 12.07.2005, to which reference has been made in paragraph 5 above. It is not with reference to the Applicants claim. This is with reference to queries made by some departments regarding pensionary benefits to be given to the redeployed surplus staff. The clarification given in the aforesaid letter would apply only to the employees redeployed before 1.01.2004. For employees redeployed after 1.01.2004, obviously the abovementioned clarification would not apply because the GPF scheme has also ceased to be in existence."
10. With the aforesaid reasoning, the Tribunal has dismissed the Original Applications filed by the petitioners. We do not find any reason to interfere with the aforesaid reasoning given by the Tribunal while dismissing the original applications inasmuch as we are agreeable with the Tribunal that once the services of the petitioners were transferred to the GNCTD, there cannot be any discrimination vis-`-vis their juniors who became part of the old scheme by virtue of joining the government before 1.1.2004, even if the petitioners were senior to them. The right of the employees for joining pension service applicable to those who joined government after 1.1.2004 has not been denied to the petitioners. Since the petitioners had joined the Government after 1.1.2004, they cannot take advantage of the old Pension Scheme retrospectively. The appointment by transfer has not given the petitioners the benefit of appointment from a retrospective date. It would only be from the date when they joined the services of GNCTD. Hence, both the writ petitions are dismissed but with no order as to costs.
10. Being bound by the view taken by the Honble High Court, we decline the prayer made in the T.A. and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
( V. N. Gaur ) ( A.K. Bhardwaj ) Member (A) Member (J) January 12, 2015 /sunil/