IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT ITANAGAR BENCH
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Dilip Kumar Mazumdar S/o Sudhir Chandra Mazumdar – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 167 of 2018
Decided On : 13-03-2024
Pension - Store-keeper - The court held that the petitioner, having been appointed as a Store-keeper under the National Pension Scheme (NPS), was not entitled to monthly pension under the CCS Pension Rules, 1972.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought direction to release his pension and pensionary benefits after being appointed as a Store-keeper following a previous writ petition for regularization of his services.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, having joined the services under the NPS, was not entitled to monthly pension under the CCS Pension Rules, 1972, and as he had not challenged the retrospective effect of his appointment, he cannot be covered under the said rules.
Issues: Regularization of services, entitlement to monthly pension under CCS Pension Rules, 1972, and coverage under NPS.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner, having been appointed under the NPS and not challenging the retrospective effect of his appointment, cannot be covered under the CCS Pension Rules, 1972, and is not entitled to monthly pension.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner's contentions did not merit acceptance, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
1. Heard Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents.
2. The petitioner, by instituting the present proceeding has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to release to him, his pension and pensionary benefits for the services as rendered by him in the capacity of Store-keeper. The petitioner was initially engaged as LDC against the leave vacancy of one Suprava Deori on temporary basis under the respondent authorities. Such services of the petitioner was extended from time to time. The petitioner in the meanwhile had also appeared in the recruitment process for the post of LDC, although the petitioner contends that he had cleared the various stages of the selection process, but, he was not appointed on regular basis in pursuance to the said process of recruitment. The petitioner, being aggrieved with regard to the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not regularizing his services, he had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP (C) No. 151(AP) of 2007.
3. This Court vide judgment and order dated 16.08.2007, proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition directing the respondent authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner, forthwith, as an LDA. In terms of the said directions passed by this Court, the respondent authorities vide order dated 19.02.2008 proceeded to appoint the petitioner against the post of Store-keeper. The petitioner continued in his service on regular basis in terms of the said order of appointment dated 19.02.2008. The petitioner on appointment on regular basis came to be covered under the National Pension Scheme (NPS) and a unique 16-digit Permanent Pension Account Number (PPAN) was also allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, on reaching the age of superannuation retired from his services w.e.f. 30.01.2017.
4. The petitioner, on his such retirement was authorized a Provisional Retirement Gratuity vide an order dated 15.03.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner represented before the respondent authorities for releasing the amount as accumulated in his pension account under the NPS. Thereafter, the petitioner vide his representation dated 28.08.2017 approached the respondent authorities for being granted normal pension along with full gratuity. The said application of the petitioner not being considered he has instituted the present proceedings.
5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties as well as perused the materials available on record.
6. The respondents have by way of filing an affidavit in the matter, contended that the petitioner was released the provisional gratuity along with leave encashment as due to him and any amount pending thereon will be released to him shortly. It was contended that the petitioner being covered under the NPS, he would not be covered by the provisions of CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and would not be entitled to monthly pension.
7. The petitioner, admittedly, had joined in his services on regular basis in pursuance to the order dated 19.02.2008 and on the date, he had joined the services as a Government servant, the provisions of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 was not in force inasmuch as by the said time the provisions of the NPS had been implemented. The petitioner has also withdrawn 60% of the corpus as accumulated in his NPS account.
8. On perusal of the writ petition, it is found that the petitioner has not presented any challenge to the order of his appointment dated 19.02.2008, requiring the same to be so effected with retrospective effect. This Court also while directing for the regularization of the services of the petitioner vide the order dated 16.08.2007, passed in WP (C) No. 151(AP) of 2007 had required such regularization of services to be effective with prospective effect only.
9. In the above view of the matter, in absence of any materials brought on record,
The entitlement to pensionary benefits for long-serving employees, even if initially appointed on a temporary basis, and the obligation of the State to provide minimum benefits for dedicated service.
Pension eligibility for Central Government employees is determined by the completion of at least ten years of qualifying service, as per Pension Rules and Article 368 of CSR (Rule 14).
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in regularizing the petitioners' services resulted in their deprivation of benefits under the Old Pension Scheme and the New Pension....
Continuous service, including periods as a daily-wager, must be considered for pension eligibility under the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Palika Non Centralized Services Retirement Benefits Regulations, 1984,....
Timely application for regularization is essential for entitlement to benefits, and seniority plays a crucial role in such determinations.
The court affirmed the right to regularization of service for pension benefits based on prior judgments, emphasizing the need for reasonable treatment of retired employees.
The right to regularization and pensionary benefits for Work-Charged employees is governed by specific eligibility criteria, and failure to meet these criteria precludes entitlement to such benefits.
Pension is a property right protected under Article 300-A of the Constitution; unauthorized withholding is unlawful and must be redressed by authorities.
The court affirmed the right to regularization of service for pension benefits based on long service, referencing similar prior judgments.
The court emphasized the applicability of relevant rules and previous judicial decisions in determining the entitlement to pensionary benefits and regularization of service.
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.