IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
S. Sudhakar & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government Finance (Pension) Department & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. Nos. 8584, 8589, 8592, 8593 and 8595 of 2021
Decided On : 10-02-2023
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board - Contributory Pension Scheme - Pension Scheme - Writ Petition - Writ petitions pertains to entitlement of petitioners to avail benefit under old Pension Scheme that prevailed prior to implementation of Contributory Pension Scheme that was brought into force vide G.O. Finance (Pension) Department - Held, Court is in complete agreement with judgement of Delhi High Court that has been extracted supra - Those judgements were also confirmed by Apex Court - Reasoning that has been given in above judgements perfectly falls in line with regard to interpreting a beneficial Scheme - Court comes to conclusion that petitioners cannot be deprived of benefit of old Pension Scheme - There shall be a direction to respondents to consider representations made by petitioners in light of this judgement and petitioners shall be brought under Pension Scheme that prevailed prior to implementation of G.O. and whatever contribution has already been recovered from the petitioners, shall be transferred to old Pension Scheme - Writ petitions allowed.
ORDER :
The issue involved in all these writ petitions pertains to the entitlement of the petitioners to avail the benefit under the old Pension Scheme that prevailed prior to the implementation of the Contributory Pension Scheme that was brought into force vide G.O.No.259 Finance (Pension) Department dated 06.08.2003.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under :
2.1. The petitioners joined as Police Constables (Grade-II) in the selection for the year 2001-2002. This selection was made pursuant to the notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board [TNUSRB] on 25.05.2002, where applications were invited to fill up 3500 posts of Police Constable (Grade-II). The total posts was increased to 4931 by virtue of the subsequent notification issued on 05.03.2003.
2.2. It is stated by the petitioners that the recruitment process immediately commenced and the selection for the post of Police Constable (Grade-II) was done in the following manner :
25.5.2002 Notification was published for 3500 posts
05.03.2003 Notification was published for 4931 posts
14.05.2003 Physical Entrance Test was conducted
10.06.2003 Written Examination was conducted
15.08.2003 Results for Written Examination was published
26.08.2003 Medical test was conducted
12.11.2003 Appointment order was issued
2.3. The 1st respondent issued a new Pension Scheme named Contributory Pension Scheme vide G.O.No.259 Finance (Pension) Department dated 06.08.2003. Through the said Government Order, an amendment was brought by issuing a notification, whereby a proviso was added to Rule 2 in Chapter I, as follows :
2.4. Pursuant to the above Government Order, G.O.No.430, dated 06.08.2004, was issued and it was provided as follows :
2.5. During the tenure of the petitioners, the pension contribution was collected/deducted from their salary as per the above Government Orders.
2.6. The grievance of the petitioners is that they ought to have been brought under the old Pension Scheme since their selection process had commenced much prior to 01.04.2003 and there was a delay in completing the process and as a result, the appointment orders were given to the petitioners only during November 2003. The petitioners have taken a stand that the delay is not attributable to them and while considering the entitlement under the old Pension Scheme, the period during which the selection process took place by notifying the vacancy, is the relevant factor and if this had taken place prior to 01.04.2003, the petitioners must be entitled to the old Pension Scheme. Therefore, the petitioners have taken a stand that the appointment order that was given subsequent to 01.04.2003 should not be put against the petitioners. Various representations were made by the petitioners to the respondents requesting for bringing the petitioners under the old Pension Scheme and since the same was not considered, these writ petitions have been filed seeking for appropriate directions.
3. The respondents have filed individual counter affidavit in each writ petition. However, the contents are the same. The relevant portions in the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder :
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....
Employment recruitment delays not attributable to candidates can exempt them from new pension rules, allowing adherence to older pension systems.
Coverage under Old Pension Scheme is determined by appointment date, not recruitment process commencement; arbitrary denial underlay by legal precedent is unsupported.
Delays in appointing candidates due to state inaction invalidate their placement under the new pension scheme, permitting claims to the old scheme 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.
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.