2013 Supreme(Raj) 2034
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
Madusudan - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9512 of 2011.
Decided On : 8-11-2013
For the Petitioner:Manish Shishodia and Sunil Ranwa, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Dr. G.R. Kalla, Government Counsel.
Denial of old pension scheme benefits to an individual appointed against a vacancy of a previous year, while granting the same to a similarly situated individual, violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
PENSION SCHEME - OLD PENSION SCHEME - RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES (PENSION) RULES, 1996 - RULE 8 - NEW PENSION SCHEME - RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES (PENSION) RULES, 2005 - RULE 8 - APPLICABILITY - APPOINTMENT AGAINST VACANCY OF 1998-1999 - GRANT OF OLD PENSION SCHEME BENEFITS - ENTITLEMENT - SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSON GRANTED OLD PENSION SCHEME BENEFITS - DENIAL OF SAME BENEFITS TO PETITIONER - VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, appointed as Physical Teacher Gr.III in 2005 pursuant to court order directing consideration of his candidature for appointment against vacancy of 1998-1999, sought old pension scheme benefits instead of new pension scheme. Representation to respondents seeking correction of date of birth in service book and grant of old pension scheme benefits remained unaddressed. Petitioner challenged denial of old pension scheme benefits.
Finding of the Court:
Court held that petitioner, appointed against vacancy of 1998-1999 and granted seniority from the same year, was entitled to old pension scheme benefits. Denial of such benefits solely due to appointment in 2005 was not tenable. Grant of old pension scheme benefits to similarly situated person, Shri Jitendra Singh, while denying the same to petitioner constituted a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: 1. Whether petitioner, appointed against vacancy of 1998-1999 and granted seniority from the same year, was entitled to old pension scheme benefits despite appointment in 2005? 2. Whether denial of old pension scheme benefits to petitioner while granting the same to similarly situated person, Shri Jitendra Singh, violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Appointment against vacancy of 1998-1999 and grant of seniority from the same year entitled petitioner to old pension scheme benefits. 2. Denial of old pension scheme benefits to petitioner while granting the same to similarly situated person constituted a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: Petition allowed. Respondents directed to grant petitioner old pension scheme benefits with all consequential benefits and revision of pay scale within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.
JUDGMENT
1. - The petitioner has filed this writ petition, while praying for following reliefs:
"(i) the respondents be directed to grant the benefits of old pension scheme to the petitioner instead of the new pension scheme with all consequential benefits and revision of pay scale etc.
(ii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case may be passed in favour of the petitioner."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 15.08.1998 issued by the respondent No.3, applied for appointment on the post of Physical Teacher Gr.III. When the respondents denied bonus marks to the petitioner for possessing National Sports Certificate, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing SBCWP No.2809/2002, which came to be allowed by this Court on 03.11.2004, while directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner after adding 15 marks and after doing so, if it is found that any person, standing lower in merit than the petitioner, has been offered appointment, then the case of the petitioner shall also be considered for appointment from the date, the person junior to the petitioner has been offered appointment. It was also directed by this Court that if the appointment has been provided to the petitioner, he will not be entitled for emoluments except the benefit of seniority. The order dated 03.11.2004 passed in SBCWP No.2809/2002 was challenged by the respondents before the Division Bench of this Court, however, no relief was granted to the respondents and ultimately, in compliance of the order dated 03.11.2004 passed by this Court in SBCWP No.2809/2002 preferred by the petitioner, the respondents accorded appointment to the petitioner on the post of Physical Teacher Gr.III vide order dated 14.07.2005 and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner joined his duties.
3. The petitioner filed a representation before the respondent No.3, while claiming that his date of birth has wrongly been recorded in the service book and has also claimed that he is entitled to get the benefit of old pension scheme in place of new pension scheme. When the said representation of the petitioner was not decided, then he moved another representation on 13.10.2008. In response to the representation dated 13.10.2008, the respondents issued an order dated 17.12.2008 and corrected the date of birth of the petitioner but did not grant the benefit of the old pension scheme to the petitioner. The petitioner has sent various reminders to the respondents but the respondents have not granted the benefit of old pension scheme to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
4. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition, in which it is contended that since the petitioner was accorded appointment in the year 2005 when the new pension scheme came into force, he is not entitled to get the benefit of old pension scheme.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the petitioner was appointed in pursuance of the Court's directions against the vacancy pertaining to the year 1998-1999 and was granted seniority from the year 1998-1999, the respondents cannot deny the benefit of old pension scheme to the petitioner on the ground that he was appointed in the year 2005 and, therefore, he is entitled to be fixed in the new pension scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the appointment was granted to the petitioner way back in the year 1998 and, therefore, he is entitled to get the benefit of old pension scheme. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one Shri Jitendra Singh was also appointed in pursuance of the directions given by this Court on the post of Physical Teacher Gr.III against the vacancy pertaining to the year 1998-1999 and was granted the benefit of the old pension scheme and the case of t
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
