Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Pawan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) 12712 of 2021, W.P.(C) 11947 of 2022 & CM Appl. 35705 of 2022 and W.P.(C) 12474 of 2022 & CM Appl. 37668 of 2022 etc
Decided On : 11-01-2023
The petitioners, personnel of different forces, had applied for the posts prior to 01.01.2004 but were appointed after 01.01.2004, sought the benefit of Old Pension Scheme (OPS) in accordance with CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The respondents denied the benefit of OPS to the petitioners on the ground that the New Contributory Pension Scheme (NPS) was implemented w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and the petitioners were appointed after 01.01.2004. The petitioners contended that the NPS was not applicable to the members of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as it is an Armed Force of the Union of India and the Notification dated 22.12.2003, which implemented the NPS, specifically excluded the Armed Forces. The respondents contended that the CRPF is not an Armed Force of the Union of India and the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of OPS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, personnel of different forces, had applied for the posts prior to 01.01.2004 but were appointed after 01.01.2004, sought the benefit of Old Pension Scheme (OPS) in accordance with CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The respondents denied the benefit of OPS to the petitioners on the ground that the New Contributory Pension Scheme (NPS) was implemented w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and the petitioners were appointed after 01.01.2004. The petitioners contended that the NPS was not applicable to the members of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as it is an Armed Force of the Union of India and the Notification dated 22.12.2003, which implemented the NPS, specifically excluded the Armed Forces. The respondents contended that the CRPF is not an Armed Force of the Union of India and the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of OPS.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of OPS as the Notification dated 22.12.2003, which implemented the NPS, specifically excluded the Armed Forces and the CRPF is an Armed Force of the Union of India. The Court also held that the respondents were not justified in denying the benefit of OPS to the petitioners on the ground that they were appointed after 01.01.2004 as the delay in their appointment was not attributable to them.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of OPS? 2. Whether the respondents were justified in denying the benefit of OPS to the petitioners on the ground that they were appointed after 01.01.2004?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of OPS as the Notification dated 22.12.2003, which implemented the NPS, specifically excluded the Armed Forces and the CRPF is an Armed Force of the Union of India. 2. The Court also held that the respondents were not justified in denying the benefit of OPS to the petitioners on the ground that they were appointed after 01.01.2004 as the delay in their appointment was not attributable to them.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petitions and directed the respondents to grant the benefit of OPS to the petitioners and all the personnel of CAPFs at large.
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
1. The petitioners in the above captioned petitions are employees of different forces i.e. Central Reserve Police Force ('CRPF'), Sashtra Seema Bal ('SSB'), Border Security Force ('BSF') and Central Industrial Security Force ('CISF') Indo Tibetan Border Police ('ITBP') etc., who have preferred these petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to the respondents for quashing of orders denying them the benefit of Old Pension Scheme ('OPS') in accordance with CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 to them vide different Office Memorandums and Signals issued by the respondents. In addition, also sought quashing of OM dated 17.02.2020 issued by respondents to the extent it does not grant benefit of Old Pension Scheme to the personnel who have been appointed pursuant to notifications/ advertisements dated 01.01.2004.
2. The primary relief sought by the petitioners in these petitions is for grant of OPS to the personnel, who have though been appointed after 01.01.2004, but had applied for the posts prior to 01.01.2004. Since the relief sought in these petitions is similar, therefore, vide order dated 08.08.2022 [in W.P.(C) No. 3424/2022] this Court had directed that W.P.(C) No. 12712/2021 shall be treated as the lead matter and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Ankur Chibber, Advocate and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, learned Standing Counsel, were called upon to put-forth the case on behalf of the petitioners and respondents respectively.
3. Mr. Ankur Chibber, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that The Special Selection Board (CPOs-2002) in June 2002 had issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for filing up the Group 'A' post of Assistant Commandants in the Border Security Force, Central Reserve Police Force, Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force and Special Security Bureau (Now Sashastra Seema Bal). As per the said advertisement, the last date for applying under the said examination was 30.06.2002. The written examination was scheduled for 02.03.2003 and the successful candidates appeared for PET, Interview and Medical examination between October, 2003 till February, 2004. The final result was declared in July, 2004. The petitioners were offered appointment for the post of Assistant Commandant during the period October, 2004 till 2005. In the interregnum, vide Notification dated 22.12.2003, New Contributory Pension Scheme ('NPS') was implemented w.e.f. 01.01.2004, however, the said scheme was not applicable to Armed Forces, as the Forces shall be governed by the OPS already existing.
4. Finding that the NPS was less beneficial than the OPS, a few personnel whose selection process had started prior to 01.01.2004 but had received appointment letters thereafter, preferred writ petitions before this Court and the said petitions being Naveen Kumar Jha Vs. UOI & Ors., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 5606; Avinash Singh Vs. UOI & Ors., 2011 SCC OnLine Del 2432; Parmanand Yadav Vs. UOI & Ors., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7274, were allowed by this Court. The Special Leave Petition ('SLP') preferred by the respondents [SLP (Civil) CC No.13755/2013] against the decision dated 02.11.2012 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12.08.2013 with direction to implement the order dated 02.11.2012 in three months.
5. Thereafter, Directorate General Border Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, vide order dated 13.01.2016 directed to convert the petitioners and other similarly situated SI/DE selected through CPOs examination 2002 as members of the OPS.
6. The similar issue was again raised and decided by this Court in Inspector Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7879: and Tanaka Ram & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6962: where-under in view of the fact that the advertisements were prior to coming into force NPS, the relief was granted to pe
The Notification dated 22.12.2003, which implemented the NPS, specifically excluded the Armed Forces and the CRPF is an Armed Force of the Union of India. Therefore, the petitioners were entitled to ....
The petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme based on previous judgments and the fact that they applied before the New Pension Scheme was implemented.
Coverage under Old Pension Scheme is determined by appointment date, not recruitment process commencement; arbitrary denial underlay by legal precedent is unsupported.
Sanction date of posts (20.10.2003) prior to NPS notification (22.12.2003) qualifies as 'advertised/notified' for recruitment, entitling ex-trade apprentices to switch from NPS to old pension scheme ....
Employees recruited via advertisements issued under OPS, with process substantially completed pre-NPS, entitled to OPS despite delayed appointments due to administrative fault; NPS inapplicable retro....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to order the deletion of specific words from a resolution to extend the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) to eligib....
Employment recruitment rules allow former apprentices eligibility for Old Pension Scheme based on recruitment initiation date before NPS implementation.
The main legal point established is that personnel who applied prior to the implementation of a new pension scheme should be entitled to the benefits of the old pension scheme.
Autonomous bodies adopting Central NPS must apply OM dated 03.03.2023, granting old pension option to employees from pre-22.12.2003 advertisements despite post-01.01.2004 joining.
Employees appointed before NPS implementation are entitled to Old Pension Scheme benefits.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
