SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(All) 2259

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Neeraj Tiwari, J.
Mahesh Narayan And Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. And Others - Respondents
Writ - A No. - 55606 of 2008
Decided On : 19-12-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Siddharth Khare, Ashok Khare

Headnote:

PENSION - OLD PENSION SCHEME - EMPLOYEES ENTERING SERVICE ON OR AFTER 01.04.2005 - NOTIFICATION DATED 28.03.2005 - NOTIFICATION DATED 07.04.2005 - UTTAR PRADESH RETIREMENT BENEFITS (AMENDMENT) RULES, 2005 - EMPLOYEES APPOINTED PURSUANT TO ADVERTISEMENT NO. A-3/E-1/2000 - APPOINTMENT LETTERS ISSUED AFTER 01.04.2005 - EMPLOYEES APPOINTED PURSUANT TO SUBSEQUENT ADVERTISEMENT NO. A-3/E-1/2002 - APPOINTMENT LETTERS ISSUED PRIOR TO 01.04.2005 - EMPLOYEES APPOINTED PURSUANT TO ADVERTISEMENT NO. A-3/E-1/2000 ARE ENTITLED TO OLD PENSION SCHEME BENEFITS - EMPLOYEES APPOINTED PURSUANT TO ADVERTISEMENT NO. A-3/E-1/2002 ARE NOT ENTITLED TO OLD PENSION SCHEME BENEFITS - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners were appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) in the Irrigation Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh pursuant to Advertisement No. A-3/E-1/2000. The advertisement clearly mentioned that the posts were pensionable. However, due to various litigations, the selection process could not be finalized. In the meantime, the State Government issued a notification dated 28.03.2005 replacing the 'Old Pension Scheme' with 'New Pension Scheme' with effect from 01.04.2005. Petitioners were issued appointment letters after 01.04.2005 and were denied the benefits of the 'Old Pension Scheme'. Petitioners challenged the notifications dated 28.03.2005 and 07.04.2005 as well as the amended Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits (Amendment) Rules, 2005.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the benefits of the 'Old Pension Scheme' as they were appointed pursuant to Advertisement No. A-3/E-1/2000, which clearly mentioned that the posts were pensionable. The Court further held that the notifications dated 28.03.2005 and 07.04.2005 as well as the amended Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits (Amendment) Rules, 2005 were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as they discriminated between employees appointed pursuant to Advertisement No. A-3/E-1/2000 and employees appointed pursuant to subsequent Advertisement No. A-3/E-1/2002.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefits of the 'Old Pension Scheme'. 2. Whether the notifications dated 28.03.2005 and 07.04.2005 as well as the amended Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits (Amendment) Rules, 2005 were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the benefits of the 'Old Pension Scheme' as they were appointed pursuant to Advertisement No. A-3/E-1/2000, which clearly mentioned that the posts were pensionable. 2. The Court further held that the notifications dated 28.03.2005 and 07.04.2005 as well as the amended Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits (Amendment) Rules, 2005 were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as they discriminated between employees appointed pursuant to Advertisement No. A-3/E-1/2000 and employees appointed pursuant to subsequent Advertisement No. A-3/E-1/2002.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to include the petitioners under 'Old Pension Scheme' as provided in Rules, 1961 before amendment and be given all other consequential benefits.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Brajesh Pratap Singh, learned standing counsel for respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Irrigation Department of State of U.P. has sent a requisition dated 20.10.1999 to Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission') notifying 954 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) to hold selection and in the notification dated 20.10.1999, it was clearly mentioned that posts are pension able. After receiving requisition, Commission issued an advertisement No. A- 3/E-1/2000 dated 22.12.2000 inviting application for Junior Engineer (Civil) Irrigation Department (Screening) Examination, 2000. Last date of submission form was 27.01.2001 and petitioners being fully eligible, have submitted the application. In the advertisment, it was provided that there would be preliminary screening test for selection of candidates to appear in the mains examination. However, subsequently aforesaid preliminary screening test was done away and all applicants permitted to appear straightway in the mains written examination which was held on 22.12.2001 and all the petitioners appeared in the said examination. Prior to the holding of written examination, Writ Petition No. 7062 (S/S) of 2001 (Pramod Kumar Gupta and others Vs. Public Service Commission, U.P. Allahabad and others) was filed by some candidates possessing Civil Engineering Degree and claiming permission to participate in the said examination. In the said petition, stay order was granted by learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.12.2001 restraining the holding of examination, which was scheduled for 22/23.12.2001. Against the interim order dated 18.12.2001, Commission preferred Special Appeal No. 485 (S/B) of 2001 (U.P. Public Service Commission Vs. State of U.P. and others), in which vide order dated 19.12.2001, interim order was modified and a direction was issued to permit the petitioners also to appear in the said examination whereas their results shall not be declared. There was no restrain order with regard to declaration of result of remaining candidates and there was only observation that declaration of result shall be only provisional subject to final decision of writ petition. Thereafter, written examination was held on 22/23.12.2001 but result of the said examination could not be declared immediately. Writ Petition No. 7062 (S/S) of 2001 was connected with Writ Petition No. 7012 (S/S) of 2001 (Anoop Ratan Awasthi Vs. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and others) and the said petitions were dismissed by learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 05.07.2005. After dismissal of writ petitions, result of written examination was declared on 05.10.2005 and petitioners were shown as having qualified and called for participating in interview. Interview was held between 21.11.2005 to 12.01.2006 and final select list of selected candidates was published in daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' on 12.03.2006 having the roll numbers of all the petitioners and they have been finally selected for appointment. Ultimately, vide office order dated 14.06.2006, appointment was granted to total 113 persons including petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 and another office order dated 20.07.2006 was issued granting appointment to total 125 persons including the name of petitioner No. 1. Pursuant to the appointment letters, all the petitioners submitted their joining on 25.07.2006, 30.06.2006 and 24.06.2006 respectively.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that presently all petitioners are working at different places in the State of U.P.

4. It is further submitted that grievance of the petitioners is with regard to their exclusion from the benefit of pension payable under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1961') and benefit of provident fund under the General Provident Fund (Uttar Pradesh) Rules, 1985. State Govern

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top