Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Vivek Agarwal, J.
Shaharoz Alam and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
WRIT - A No. – 6711, 6713 & 6715 of 2020
Decided On : 22-09-2020
Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 – Pension – New Rules – Petitioners’ learned counsel has raise an issue that petitioners, who are working on the post of constable, were subjected to the recruitment process prior to the cut off date i.e. 01.04.2005, when new pension Rules came into vogue. – Petitioners contention is that admittedly appointment order to the petitioners were issued after the cut-off date, but that was due to the fact that similar litigation was pending in the High Court which was initiated at the instance of unsuccessful candidates and on account of stay granted by the High Court, appointment orders could not be issued in favour of the petitioners. – Whether petitioners who were appointed after the cut off date i.e. 31.03.2005, are entitled to benefit of old pension Rules which were in vogue up to 31.03.2005 or will be governed by new pension Rule. –
Finding of the Court:
Court is of the opinion that petitioners have failed to make out a case either of parity with that of Mahesh Narayan or Firangi Prasad or the judgments cited therein, neither have been able to establish any mala fide, arbitrariness or deliberate delay in the process of recruitment. Petitioners have failed to make out the case that the legislative and executive action has failed to satisfy the twin test of reasonable classification and the rational principal co-related to the object sought to be achieved. In absence of such pleadings and submissions even on this ground petition is not maintainable. – Petitioners contention that due to pendency of similar litigation delay has been caused in issuance of appointment order is not made out from record. No proof in regard to this averment has been furnished by the petitioners. – Issue of prospectivity of the Rules is also discussed above. – It is settled principle of law that a person attains rights in the matter of service from the date of appointment and not from the date of initiation of the recruitment process. – Therefore, this arguments of the petitioners that recruitment was initiated prior to coming into force of the amended Pension Rules has no force. – Dismissal of SLP does not mean that the judgment of High Court has attained a binding nature with the seal of approval of the Supreme Court. – Judgment of Mahesh Narayan being distinguishable on facts and petitioners have failed to make out a case of parity or on its own merits, petitions are liable to be dismissed and are dismissed. –
Result:Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Sankalp Narain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ashish Kumar Nagar, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Petitioners’ learned counsel has raise an issue that petitioners, who are working on the post of constable, were subjected to the recruitment process prior to the cut off date i.e. 01.04.2005, when new pension Rules came into vogue. Petitioners contention is that admittedly appointment order to the petitioners were issued after the cut-off date, but that was due to the fact that similar litigation was pending in the High Court which was initiated at the instance of unsuccessful candidates and on account of stay granted by the High Court, appointment orders could not be issued in favour of the petitioners.
3. Therefore, the whole controversy is to be addressed within the narrow compass i.e. whether petitioners who were appointed after the cut off date i.e. 31.03.2005, are entitled to benefit of old pension Rules which were in vogue up to 31.03.2005 or will be governed by new pension Rule.
4. These three petitions since raise common legal issues and the factual back drop under which this legal issue has been raised being same, all the three petitions are being disposed of simultaneously.
5. The brief facts as extracted from writ petition no.6711 of 2020 are that on 06.01.2005, 4364 (Four thousand three hundred and sixty four) posts of Constable in Civil Police and PAC were advertised by the State of Uttar Pradesh.
6. Petitioners were since eligible, had applied for the post of Constable. In the advertisement, it is mentioned that eligible candidates may appear in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police between 10.01.2005 and 10.02.2005 on any working day between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. where applications be examined and physical measurements will be carried out. It is mentioned that no application shall be entertained after the cut-off date. It is also mentioned that persons who qualify the preliminary eligibility parameters during scrutiny of their candidature and subject to fulfilment of physical parameters, alone shall be eligible for other stages of selection. It is also mentioned in the advertisement that physical efficiency test will commence on 17.02.2005 at 8.00 a.m. and a candidate will be required to appear on the same centre where he had deposited his application form.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since petitioners’ recruitment was initiated before coming into force of notification dated 28.03.2005 and 07.04.2005 so also before coming into force of the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits (Amendment) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2005) whereby it is provided that Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1961) and General Provident Fund (Uttar Pradesh) Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1985) will not apply to employees entering in service on or after 01.04.2005, these Rules will not be applicable from a retrospective date.
8. Petitioners’ submission is that at the time of initiation of the recruitment when advertisement dated 06.01.2005 was issued, provisions of the Rules, 1961 were invogue and therefore, there was a legitimate expectation that their service conditions will be governed by Rules, 1961 and they will be getting remuneration on the post of constable in terms of the Rules, 1961.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the advertisement did not disclose the fact that petitioners will be subjected to new contributory pension system, which was introduced for the first time vide notification dated 28.03.2005 followed by subsequent amendment in the Rules notified on 07.04.2005 made effective from 01.04.2005.
10. Petitioners’ contention is that ex-servicemen, who have been recruited, have been excluded from the ambit of new pension scheme and they are being governed in accordance with earlier rules, which is violative of Article 16 and 14
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
