IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, ITANAGAR BENCH
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Ama Tajo, S/o. Shri Nampam Tajo & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of A.P., Rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Home Department, Itanagar & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 190 of 2023
Decided On : 31-01-2024
NPS Scheme - Pension Entitlement - CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 - [New Pension Scheme (NPS) - Pension Entitlement - CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972] - The court discussed the applicability of the New Pension Scheme (NPS) to employees appointed before 01.01.2008, emphasizing the date of initiation of the recruitment process as crucial in determining the pension scheme coverage. The court referred to relevant case laws and held in favor of the petitioners, allowing their entitlement to the old pension scheme.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, working as Head Warden/Jail Warden, challenged a communication stating their coverage under the New Pension Scheme (NPS) due to their appointment after 01.01.2008, despite the recruitment process initiated before the cut-off date.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the date of initiation of the recruitment process and the select list publication, emphasizing that the crucial date for determining pension scheme coverage is the date of recruitment process initiation, not the date of appointment. The court found in favor of the petitioners, allowing their entitlement to the old pension scheme.
Issues: The key issue was the entitlement of the petitioners to the old pension scheme under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, despite their appointment after 01.01.2008, based on the date of initiation of the recruitment process.
Ratio Decidendi: The crucial date for determining pension scheme coverage is the date of initiation of the recruitment process, not the date of appointment. The court relied on relevant case laws and held in favor of the petitioners, allowing their entitlement to the old pension scheme.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, interfered with the impugned communication, and directed that the petitioners be covered under the old pension scheme and granted benefits accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Shri M. Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh.
2. 95 numbers of petitioners have joined together in this writ petition with amongst others, the principal grievance relating to their pension.
3. The petitioners are working as Head Warden/ Jail Warden in the Jail Department which is under the Inspector General of Prisons of the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
4. The grievance of the petitioners, as indicated above, is treating them to be covered by the New Pension Scheme (for short, ‘NPS’). To be more particular, the grievance is against a communication, dated 22.07.2021 issued by the authorities, by which, it has been laid down that employees who were appointed on or after 01.01.2008 would be covered by the NPS scheme.
5. The case of the petitioners is that the recruitment process through which they were inducted in the services was pursuant to an advertisement, dated 19.03.2007. The petitioners had participated in the recruitment process which had consisted of various segments including physical fitness and interview and accordingly, a merit list was published on 14.12.2007 by notifying 100 numbers of selected candidates for the post of Jail Warden and in that list, the names of the petitioners were included. Consequently, the petitioners were appointed on 15.02.2008 and they were issued offer letter on 15.02.2008 subsequently to which they were formally appointed. The Finance Department however had issued a notification dated 17.11.2007 by which, the new pension scheme was introduced w.e.f. 01.01.2008. It is stipulated that it would be applicable to all new entrants to the State services who were appointed on or after 01.01.2008.
6. It is the case of the petitioners that their selection for appointment was prior to 01.01.2008 which is the cut-off date as per the notification and therefore, they are entitled to the benefit of GPF and should be covered by the old pension scheme under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in terms of the O.M. dated 17.02.2020 issued by the Department of Pension, Government of India.
7. Shri Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the cut-off date is to be examined from the point of view of the date when the vacancy which was existing was sought to be filled up. He submits that there is no manner of doubt that the recruitment process was initiated on 19.03.2007 which is much prior to the cut-off date of 01.01.2008. He submits that even the select list was dated 14.12.2007 and the appointment of the petitioners were incidentally made after 01.01.2008 which should not deprive them of their entitlement to be placed and governed by the old pension scheme.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon a number of judgment in this regard including a judgment dated 04.02.2022 of the Division Bench of this Court in WP (C) 7369/2021 (Sanjay Kumar and Another vs. Union of India & Others). The Hon’ble Division Bench vide the judgment dated 04.02.2022 which was dealing with a similar issue which was in connection from an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal had held that it is the date on which the recruitment process was initiated which would be crucial to determine as to under which scheme the appointees would be covered.
10. For ready reference, the observation made in Paragraph Nos. 19 & 23 of the said judgment are extracted hereinbelow:-
AI
The date of initiation of the recruitment process is crucial in determining the coverage of pension schemes for employees, as emphasized by relevant case laws and applied in this judgment.
Employment recruitment delays not attributable to candidates can exempt them from new pension rules, allowing adherence to older pension systems.
The timing and completion of the recruitment process are crucial in determining entitlement to specific pension schemes and benefits.
The delay in the appointment process did not entitle the petitioners to the benefits of the old pension scheme, and the 1969 Circular was not binding to support their claim.
Coverage under Old Pension Scheme is determined by appointment date, not recruitment process commencement; arbitrary denial underlay by legal precedent is unsupported.
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.