1. Selection for public prosecutor posts — Administrative delay in appointment despite timely clearance — Exclusion from pension scheme based on appointment date cutoff. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 377
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ajay Rastogi, Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.
P. RANJITHARAJ – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Nos. 3176-3177 of 2022 (Arising from the SLP(Civil) Nos.14438-39 of 2019) with Civil Appeal Nos. 3178-3179 of 2022 (Arising from the SLP(Civil) Nos. 7824-7825 of 2022) (D. No.9915 of 2019)
Decided on : 25-04-2022
Important Points
The delay in appointments, not attributable to the appellants, should not deprive them of their entitlement to claim membership in the Pension Scheme, 1978.
Subject
Employment - Government Employment
Act Referred
TAMIL NADU PENSION RULES: R.2
Headnote
Delay condoned - Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 - Rule 2 - Amendment dated 6th August, 2003 - Contributory Pension Scheme - Appellants' entitlement to become a member of the Pension Scheme, 1978
Fact of the Case:
The appellants participated in a selection process for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II. Despite being cleared by the Commission, their appointments were withheld for two to three years. They were eventually appointed after the introduction of a new Contributory Pension Scheme, which led to their denial of membership in the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court's finding that the appellants were not entitled to become members of the Pension Scheme, 1978 was not sustainable. The delay in their appointments, which was not attributable to them, should not deprive them of their right to claim membership in the Pension Scheme, 1978.
Issues: The main issue was the appellants' entitlement to become members of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 despite their delayed appointments and the introduction of a new Contributory Pension Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in the appellants' appointments, which was not their fault, should not deprive them of their right to claim membership in the Pension Scheme, 1978, especially considering that all other candidates appointed through the same selection process were granted membership.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the appellants were directed to be treated as members of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, with all associated benefits.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. V.Balaji, Adv. Mr. Asaithambi MSM, Adv. Mr. C.Kannan, Adv. Ms.Neha Singh, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AoR. Ms. Mary Mitzy, Adv. Ms. Devyani Gupta, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv. Mr. K. V. Vijayakumar, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Ms Manisha C., Adv. Mr. Nithin P., Adv. Ms Aakansha Kaul, Adv. Mr. G.S.Makker, AOR Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR
For Petitioner(s) Mr. V.Balaji, Adv. Mr. Asaithambi MSM, Adv. Mr. C.Kannan, Adv. Ms.Neha Singh, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AoR. Ms. Mary Mitzy, Adv. Ms. Devyani Gupta, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv. Mr. K. V. Vijayakumar, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Ms Manisha C., Adv. Mr. Nithin P., Adv. Ms Aakansha Kaul, Adv. Mr. G.S.Makker, AOR Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Appellants claim entitlement to pension rules based on selection process and non-attributable delay — Respondents argue strict adherence to appointment date cutoff. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. Delay in appointment not attributable to candidates — Parity with lower-merit candidates appointed timely — Administrative delay cannot deprive candidates of pensionary benefits. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. Candidates cannot be deprived of pensionary benefits applicable to their selection batch if the delay in appointment is not attributable to them. (Para 12 , 13 )
5. Appeals allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Appellants directed to be treated as members of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. (Para 14 , 15 )
6. Does administrative delay in appointment justify denying pension benefits applicable to the selection batch?
No. If candidates are cleared for appointment and others lower in merit are appointed timely, a delay not attributable to the candidates cannot deprive them of pensionary benefits applicable to that selection process. (Para 12 , 13 )
7. How is the applicability of pension rules determined when appointment is delayed by the State?
When candidates participate in a common selection process and are cleared before a cutoff date, they are entitled to the rules applicable to that process regardless of subsequent administrative delays in appointment. (Para 11 , 13 )
JUDGMENT
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeals have been filed assailing the judgment dated 19th June, 2014 and later order dated 2nd November, 2018 passed in review application, whereby the appellants have been denied to become member of the TAMIL NADU PENSION RULES , 1978.
4. The indisputed facts manifest from the record are that 53 vacancies of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II (hereinafter referred to as “APP Grade II”) came to be advertised by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) by advertisement dated 9th November, 2001. After undertaking the process for selection, the final select list was sent by the Commission to the State Government, pursuant to which 51 persons, including those who are lower in order of merit to the appellants herein, were appointed on the post of APP Grade II by the Government by order dated 24th September, 2002.
5. So far as the present appellants are concerned, their names at the given point of time were withheld for want of further verification and clearance from the Commission. The Commission on verification granted clearance to both the appellants and intimated to the State Government by its communication dated 3rd September, 2002 (much before the appointments made by order dated 24th September, 2002). Despite all the formalities being completed, without any reasonable cause or justification, the State Government withheld the appointments of the appellants and finally both the appellants were appointed on the post of APP Grade II on 23rd August, 2005 and 23rd April, 2004 respectively.
6. In the meanwhile vide notification dated 6th August, 2003, an amendment was made under the TAMIL NADU PENSION RULES , 1978 which came into force w.e.f. 1st April, 2003 and following proviso was added to Rule 2 :
“Provided that these rules shall not apply to Government Servants appointed on or after 1st April, 2003, to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State which are borne on pensionable establishments, whether temporary or permanent.”
7. Accordingly, the State Government introduced a new Contributory Pension Scheme applicable to the Tamil Nadu State Government employees who are recruited on or after 1st April, 2003.
8. The grievance of the appellants is that advertisement was published by the Commission on 9th November, 2001 for the block year 1998-2002, pursuant to which after selection 51 candidates out of 53 (except the appellants) were appointed by order dated 24th September, 2002 and before these appointments could be made, the names of the appellants were also cleared by the Commission after due verification on 3rd September, 2002, but the State Government failed to include their names while appointments of other selected candidates, including those who are lower in order of merit, were made on 24th September, 2002 and without any reasonable cause/justification, their appointments were withheld for two/three years and finally they were appointed on 23rd August, 2005 and 23rd April, 2004 respectively and the delay in appointments in no manner could be attributable to the appellants and because of their later appointments, the Government has denied them to avail the benefit and become a member of the Scheme, 1978 which was applicable to the employees who were appointed on or before 1st April, 2003.
9. The counsel for the appellants further submits that in terms of their placement in order of merit in the select list despite later appointments in the year 2004 and 2005, still all benefits, including seniority, promotion, etc. were extended to the appellants. In the given circumstances, merely because there is delay in appointment would not deprive the appellants of their right to become a member of the Pension Scheme, 1978 claiming parity with the other candidates who had participated in the common process of selection held by the Commission pursuant to advertisement dated 9th September, 2001 and the High Court ha
