Point of Law: Delay which had occurred during the selection process as well as the delay in issuing the appointment orders cannot be attributed to the petitioners in the absence of any explanation forthcoming from the respondent authorities.

JUDGMENT :

Soumitra Saikia, J

This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners, namely, 1. Shri Sanjay Kumar and 2. Sri Hardewa Ram challenging the order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in O.A. No. 041/00218/2018 whereby their original application filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati was dismissed.

2. The petitioners are working as the Superintendent Group “B” of Central Goods and Service Tax and posted at Dibrugarh and Agartala respectively. By way of advertisement dated 25-31 January, 2003 issued by the Staff Selection Commission, a Combined Graduate Level (Preliminary) Examination-2003 for selection of candidates for recruitment to the post of Inspector of Central Excise/Income Tax, Preventive Officer in Customs etc. along with other posts were advertised. The petitioners applied for in response to the said advertisement. The selection was conducted in three stages, namely, preliminary examination, main examination and interview. The petitioner No. 1 appeared in the examination under Roll No. 2018181 and the petitioner No. 2 appeared in the examination under Roll No.1728631. The results of the examinations were published in the “Employment News” dated 15-21 January, 2005. The names of the petitioners appeared at Serial No. 185 and 219 respectively under the category of Inspector of Central Excise. Thereafter, on completion of required procedural formalities and Police verification etc., the petitioner No. 1 joined his service on 05.08.2005 and the petitioner No. 2 joined his service 24.08.2005 to the posts of Inspector of Central Excise. The petitioners were subsequently promoted to the posts of Superintendent of Central Excise w.e.f. 16.03.2017.

3. When the selection process was initiated, all the employees were covered under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as per the General Provident Fund (GPF) Scheme in respect of their Pension which was in force till 31.12.2003. Subsequently, the pension Rule was substituted by the Government of India by a “New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (NPS)” w.e.f. 01.01.2004.

4. The grievance of the petitioners are that they were not aware of the Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2003 whereby the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme was introduced. They believed in good faith that the said New Pension Scheme will be a better Pension Scheme for Welfare of the employees. Also since, the petitioners were unemployed at the relevant point in time, they were in no position to bargain, therefore, they accepted the offer of appointment since no other alternative option was available to them. Pursuant to their appointment in the service, the petitioners approached the respondent authorities praying for inclusion of their names in the GPF Scheme and CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 instead of under the New Pension Scheme Pension Scheme. But their prayers were not considered and it was maintained that it is only the New Pension Scheme which will apply in their cases as they had joined service after 01.01.2004. The petitioners also submitted detailed representations on 30.08.2017, however, the respondent No. 3, vide impugned letter dated 11.12.2017 rejected the claims of the petitioners and informed them that as per the standing instructions of the Government, consequent upon the introduction of the New Pension Scheme, no Government servant who joined services on or after 01.01.2004 will be eligible to get the benefit of GPF under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Being aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati by filing their O.A. No. 041/00218/2018 praying for directions from the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati. It was urged before the Tribunal that since they were recruited against the vacancy year/recruitment year of 2003, their appointments made pursuant to 01.01.2004 will not come in the way of they being included under and being given the b