IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
U.P. Lekhpal Sangh – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) Nos. 4660, 18159, 18197 of 2021, Writ (A) No. 42840 of 2015
Decided On : 26-10-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common judgment for similar writ petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners' relief sought regarding old pension. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. the selection process for lekhpal positions began with recruitment ads in 1999 and culminated in extensive delays. (Para 13) |
| 4. pension rule changes affecting petitioners. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. state's counter-arguments regarding pension applicability. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. court's observations on delays and responsibilities. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 7. analysing legal status of selection process. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 8. court's acknowledgment of past precedents. (Para 46 , 48 , 86 , 90) |
| 9. claims to old pension considered just. (Para 89 , 91 , 93 , 124) |
| 10. delay in the recruitment process unjustly placed candidates under the new pension scheme. (Para 118) |
| 11. court mandates reinstatement of applicants to the old pension scheme due to extensive administrative delays. (Para 134) |
| 12. final court decision in favor of petitioners. (Para 137) |
JUDGMENT :
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Kailash Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Shashank Shekhar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. Since the controversy involved in the aforesaid writ petitions are identical, therefore, all writ petitions are being decided together with this common judgment.
3. For convenience, the facts are being delineated from Writ (A) No. 18197 of 2021.
4. The petitioners by means of the present writ petition have prayed for the following relief:
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make a regular deduction towards General Provident Fund (under Old Pension Rules) instead of deduction in terms of new Pension Scheme regularly every month from the salary of the petitioners.
(iii) Issue any other suitable writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the end of justice.
(iv) Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioners.”
5. The facts in brief are that petitioner no. 1 is an organisation of the Government of Uttar Pradesh Employees (hereinafter referred to as ‘Sangh’) posted in the revenue department on the post of Lekhpal. The petitioner no. 2 being Treasurer has been authorised by the Sangh to file the present writ petition. The petitioners nos. 3 to 8 are also members of the Sangh and are working as Lekhpal in different districts and are entitled to the relief prayed for in the writ petition.
6. The post of Lekhpal is a Non-Gazetted Subordinate Service (Group-C) post and comes under the revenue department. The service conditions of the Lekhpal are governed by the U.P Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1958’).
7. It appears that the Board of Revenue wrote a letter to the District Magistrates of different districts to make the appointment for the post of Lekhpal. In pursuance of the said letter, the District Magistrates started selection proceedings and issued an advertisement in respect to their districts. An Advertisement No. 492/7-Bhulekh dated 04.02.1999 was issued by the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur inviting applications for selection for recruitment against 32 posts of Lekhpal in District Shahjahanpur. Similarly, the District Magistrate, Jaunpur issued an Advertiseme
Union of India vs. Kali Dass Batish
Vijoy Kumar Pandey vs. Arvind Kumar Rai and Others
Amar Nath Om Prakash vs. State of Punjab
Chintels India Limited vs. Bhayana Builders Private Limited
Manoj Kumar Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another
Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Malkiat Singh
Rakhi Rai vs. High Court of Delhi
Ravi Raj and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others
Roshan Lal Tandon vs. Union of India and Others
Shaharoz Alam and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others
State of Bihar vs. Secretariat Assistant S.E. Union and Others
Satyesh Kumar Mishra and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others 2016 (6) ADJ 808 (LB)
AI
Delays in appointing candidates due to state inaction invalidate their placement under the new pension scheme, permitting claims to the old scheme benefits.
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....
Coverage under Old Pension Scheme is determined by appointment date, not recruitment process commencement; arbitrary denial underlay by legal precedent is unsupported.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to be governed by a pension scheme is determined by the date of commencement of the recruitment process, and delay in appointment du....
Employees recruited via advertisements issued under OPS, with process substantially completed pre-NPS, entitled to OPS despite delayed appointments due to administrative fault; NPS inapplicable retro....
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.