IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need for a review of the cap on beneficiaries, establishment of a transparent mechanism for vacancy information, and simplification of the application process to ensure equitable treatment and accessibility to the Old Age Assistance Rules, 2009.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral) - The Old Age Assistance Rules, 2009 ("Rules"), promulgated by the Government of NCT of Delhi ("GNCTD"), fundamentally serve as a scheme devised to provide financial aid to the indigent above the age of sixty years. As it stands, the benefits of the scheme are earmarked for a limited number of beneficiaries. This numerical cap has undergone revisions over time; nonetheless, an upper limit remains. In W.P.(C) 3683/2022, the Petitioner inter alia impugns this upper limit, advocating for an extension of the Rules' benefits to a higher number of qualifying applicants. Concurrently, in W.P.(C) 15394/2022, the Petitioner raises similar concerns, having faced a rejection of his enrolment application owing to the exhaustion of available slots. Given the analogous foundation of the challenges presented, a common judgment is being passed.

2. In order to comprehend the contentions raised in the instant petitions, it would be appropriate to briefly delineate the factual backdrop. The Rules were introduced with the objective of proffering financial support to destitute elderly individuals bereft of any means of sustenance or familial support. Rule 4 provides the eligibility criteria, whereby applicants for financial aid must be aged 60 years or above, should have resided in the NCT of Delhi for a minimum span of five years preceding the date of application, and the annual family income from all sources should not exceed INR 1,00,000, among other conditions. Under the Rules (including the subsequent amendments), a financial stipend of Rs.2,000/- is granted to the beneficiaries aged between 60 to 69 years, and a sum of Rs.2,500/- is extended to those aged 70 years and beyond.

3. The Petitioners' grievance emanates from the notification dated 01st September, 2014 ("Impugned Notification"),[Bearing F 41(169)/FAS/DSW/Enhance of Cap-OAP (LG)/'14-'15/718-27] whereby an overall ceiling on the number of applications was introduced by substituting Rule 7(b) as follows:

"New applications under the Old Age Pension Scheme shall be received within the overall ceiling applicable at the time, subject to the approval of the Competent Authority. Thereafter, if found eligible, the assistance would become payable from the month subsequent to the month of application."

Petitioners' Contentions

4. The Petitioners contend that the Impugned Notification arbitrarily and discriminatorily creates a classification in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950, as it seeks to discriminate between classes of equally placed people. It is unreasonable as no rationale or basis was provided for deviating from the parent notification, i.e., the Rules, and introducing a ceiling. Further, the restriction on number of applications clashes with the Rules' fundamental objective of dispensing financial assistance to all eligible destitute individuals. Relying upon data received through an RTI reply, the Petitioners submit that only 4.02 lakh senior citizens were served under the scheme in 2020-21, well below the limit of 5.3 lakh citizens fixed in 2016.

5. The Petitioners highlight lack of a transparent mechanism through which an applicant can access details regarding available slots or a waiting list on the official website, exacerbating the afore-mentioned issues and grievances. They cast doubt over the manner of implementation of the scheme by emphasizing absence of a transparent application process, underscoring ignorance regarding the availability of vacancies. This opacity, they assert, unjustly augments the discretionary powers of the deciding officer, creating scope for arbitrary decisions.

Analysis and findings

6. We have considered the contentions put forth by the Petitioners. Prior to articulating our opinion, it is imperative to acknowledge an earlier decision concerning a similar issue in W.P.(C) 469/2015 titled as Social Jurist, A Civil Right Group v. East Delhi Municipal Corporation and Others, Dated 20th January, 2016. In