SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Thorat Vijay Vitthal - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 9201 of 2021
Decided On : 08-11-2021




Equal treatment under the law necessitates extending Old Pension Scheme benefits to petitioners selected in a similar recruitment process without imposing penalties for administrative delays.

Headnote:(A) Old Pension Scheme - Petitioners selected as Constable/GD in Border Security Force pursuing identical recruitment processes as in previous petitions - Delay in appointment letter issuance not penalizing - Court previously ruled to extend Old Pension Scheme benefits to similarly placed individuals; thus, petitioners entitled to the same relief. (Paras 4, 5, 6)

(B) Fairness in administering benefits - Equal treatment under the law mandates that applicants in similar situations receive comparable benefits without undue delay. (Paras 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, selected as Constable/GD in November 2003, seek Old Pension Scheme benefits based on past judgments favoring similarly situated individuals. Respondents failed to produce an affidavit verifying facts.

Findings of Court:
The respondents must extend the Old Pension Scheme benefit to the petitioners within eight weeks as adjudicated in analogous cases establishing fairness and equality.

Issues: Whether the petitioners can be denied the Old Pension Scheme benefits due to delayed appointment issuance despite timely completion of selection and medical examinations?

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that not extending equal benefits to all those selected in comparable circumstances equates to unfair discrimination, and the issuance of the Old Pension Scheme must reflect this principle.

Result: Petitioners granted relief, and the writ petition is allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek benefits of old pension scheme. (Para 2)
2. no affidavit provided; delay not the petitioners' fault. (Para 3)
3. past similar cases granted pension benefits. (Para 4)
4. writ petition allowed for pension benefits. (Para 5)
5. order issued to implement pension scheme benefits. (Para 6 , 7)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)--The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondents to extend the benefit of Old Pension Scheme to the petitioners who were selected as Constable/GD in Border Security Force pursuant to recruitment held in November, 2003 by Frontier Headquarters BSF, Rajasthan, Gujarat, U.P, Punjab, Maharashtra in August, 2003 on the ground that the petitioners are identically placed as the petitioners in the case of Tanaka Ram & Ors., W.P.(C) No.6680/2017, as they were selected pursuant to the same selection process.

3. On the last date of hearing, this Court had issued notice and directed the counsel for Central Government to verify the facts averred in the present writ petition. However, no affidavit has been placed on record by the respondents.

4. This Court is of the view that the petitioners cannot be penalized for delay on the part of office of the STC, BSF in issuing appointment letters to them since it is an admitted fact that their selection process had been completed in November, 2003 and their medical examination had been conducted in December, 2003. Moreover, as some of the similarly situated Constables/GDs as the petitioners herein have already been granted the benefit of Old Pension Scheme, it would not be fair to deny the said relief to the petitioners. In fact, this Court in SI/Min M.R. Gurjar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 8208/2020 has allowed similar writ petitions. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:

    "13. Having regard to the fact that in the present batch of cases also the advertisement/notification was issued in September, 2003 and June, 2003 i.e. prior to coming into force of the present contributory pension scheme on 22nd December, 2003, this Court is of the view that petitioners cannot be deprived of the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme.

    14. This is more so when the batchmates of the petitionersare getting this benefit under various judgements passed by this Court.

    15. For the above reasons, the petitions are allowed. Respondents are directed to extend the benefit of Old Pension Scheme to each of these Petitioners and pass consequential orders within a period of eight weeks from today."

5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to extend the benefit of Old Pension Scheme to the petitioners, subject to verification by the respondents within eight weeks.

6. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

7. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top