IMPORTANT POINT
A government employee cannot claim benefits under an old pension scheme if they joined service after the new scheme was implemented and accepted benefits under the new scheme, as this acceptance negates any claim to the old scheme.

ORDER :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

1. The writ petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 13.02.2023 (Annexure 8) passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench in OA No.051/00097/2021 whereby and where under learned Central Administrative Tribunal has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to pay him the entire pension amount payable to his father for the period 01.10.2014 to 28.09.2019 (with defaulting interest on account of unreasonable delay), as per the old pension scheme and for issuance of appropriate writ(s)/Order(s)/ direction (s), in the nature of mandamus directing the concerned respondents to pay to petitioner entire pension amount payable to his father for the period 01.10.2014 to 28.09.2019 (with defaulting interest on account of unreasonable delay), as per the old pension scheme, after deducting the amount already paid.

2. The brief fact of this case as per the pleading made by the writ petitioner required to be consider.

3. It is evident from the pleading made as referred herein above that the father of the writ petitioner, namely, Gangadhar Gope, was working as Gramin Dak Sevak and he was recommended by Departmental Promotion Committee, in its meeting held on 17.10.2003 for appointment as Group D cadre for the year 2000 and 2001 in the department of post in the same year, i.e. sometime in the year 2003, however the father of the appellant joined on 10.02.2004.

4. Father of the petitioner after serving for the period of more than 10 years of continuous service has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2014. It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that initially the file was processed after retirement of his father for fixation of pension under the Old Pension Scheme which was prevalent up to 31.12.2003. However, on 01.01.2004 the old pension scheme has been substituted by National Pension Scheme (NPS). But subsequently, the said file was returned by the concerned Section of the department based upon the date of appointment of the father of writ petitioner which is 10.02.2004.

5. The father of the writ petitioner, in the meanwhile, has died on 28.09.2019, thereafter, the writ petitioner being the son of the concerned employee, namely, Gangadhar Gope has agitated grievance for the purpose of holding his father entitlement for pension under the old pension scheme, by filing representation to the concerned respondents asking them as to why the petitioner’s father was not paid pensionary benefit despite rendering 10 years of continuous service.

6. The said representation was dealt with by the authority and a decision was taken on 04.11.2019 (annexure 5). The writ petitioner aggrieved with the said order has challenged by approaching the learned Central Administrative Tribunal along with the consequential prayer to extend the benefit under the old pension scheme on the ground that his father was already working in the Dak Sevak and prior to 01.01.2004 the selection process for such appointment was already completed.

7. The learned Tribunal after calling upon the respondents wherein, ground has been taken by the concerned respondents by disputing the said claim upon the reason that the benefit of deduction from the salary has already been availed by late father of the writ petitioner which was requisite condition for the purpose of getting the benefit of CPF under the NPS.

8. Learned Tribunal based upon the aforesaid fact has come to the findings that once the father of the writ petitioner has accepted the benefits to be given CPF under the NPS, now is not available for his son to make a claim that his father should be under the fold of the old pension scheme.

9. Hence, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is under question in this writ petition.

10. Learned counsel Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey appearing for the petitioner has argued this case by questioning the said