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

2024 Supreme(All) 279

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ARUN BHANSALI, CJ., ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
Narendra Singh And Others – Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin./Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education U.P. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko And Others – Respondents
Special Appeal No. 21 Of 2024
Decided On : 19-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mohd. Ali, Ravindra Kumar Yadava.
For the Respondents: C.S.C., Ran Vijay Singh.

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory entitlement of employees joining after 01.04.2005 to the New Pension Scheme as per the notification, and the rationality of the classification and application of the Scheme to institutions under grant-in-aid subsequent to 01.04.2005.

Headnote:

Pension Scheme - Challenge to New Pension Scheme - U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 - U.P. General Provident Fund Rules, 1985 - [Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952] - [Notification dated 28.03.2005, U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, U.P. General Provident Fund Rules, 1985] - The court discussed the validity of the impugned Notification dated 28.03.2005, the applicability of the New Pension Scheme, and the amendments made in the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961. The court also considered the legal provisions related to the defined contribution pension system, the registration of Permanent Retirement Account Number (PRAN), and the implications of joining government service after 01.04.2005. The court highlighted the rationality of the classification and the application of the New Pension Scheme to institutions under grant-in-aid subsequent to 01.04.2005.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants challenged the validity of the impugned Notification dated 28.03.2005, which mandated the applicability of the New Pension Scheme to Assistant Teachers/Head Masters employed in Primary Schools in the State who joined their post after 01.04.2005. The appellants claimed entitlement to the Old Pension Scheme, but their petitions were dismissed for failing to establish their claim of entering into service prior to 1st April, 2005.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellants, who joined their posts after 01.04.2005, were mandatorily entitled to the New Pension Scheme as per the notification. The court noted that the State Government had issued orders for the registration of PRAN for employees who joined after 01.04.2005 and that the application of the Scheme was not faulted with. The court also highlighted that the appellants had not raised their grievances until 2023 and dismissed the appeal for lacking merit.

Issues: The issues involved the validity of the impugned Notification dated 28.03.2005, the entitlement to the Old Pension Scheme, and the applicability of the New Pension Scheme to employees joining after 01.04.2005.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellants, joining after 01.04.2005, were mandatorily entitled to the New Pension Scheme as per the notification. The court also emphasized the rationality of the classification and the application of the New Pension Scheme to institutions under grant-in-aid subsequent to 01.04.2005.

Final Decision: The Special Appeal was dismissed as it lacked merit, and the court upheld the impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2023.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners, Sri Indrajeet Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. The intra-Court Appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2023 passed in bunch of writ petitions, leading writ petition being Writ-A No. 83 of 2023 whereby the entire bunch of writ petitions has been dismissed, including the Writ-A No. 882 of 2023, Narendra Singh and 330 others v. State of U.P. and others filed by the appellants-petitioners, on the ground that they were unable to establish their claim that they had entered into service prior to 1st April, 2005, which is an essential ingredient for entitlement of Old Pension Scheme.

3. In nutshell, the case of the appellants-petitioners is that before the Writ Court, the appellants-petitioners had assailed the validity of impugned Notification dated 28.03.2005 whereby the State Government has mandated for applicability of New Pension Scheme to the Assistant Teachers/Head Masters employed in Primary Schools in the State, who joined their post after 01.04.2005.

4. In furtherance of the impugned Notification dated 28.03.2005, the State Government has passed consequential order dated 16.12.2022 whereby in para 3 (v), it has been mentioned that without registration of Permanent Retirement Account Number (PRAN) under New Pension Scheme for new entrants who joined their services after 01.04.2005, their salary may not be drawn. Consequently, the State Government has issued orders on 21.03.2012, 21.11.2022, 28.11.2022 and 16.12.2022 for registration of PRAN of employees who joined their services after 01.04.2005. All the aforesaid Government Orders were challenged by the appellants-petitioners before the learned Single Judge, who, in turn, dismissed all the writ petitions vide impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2023.

5. Main submission of the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners is that learned Single Judge has not considered the dictum of 5-Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court given in D.S. Nakara and others v. Union of India and others [(1983) 1 SCC 305], wherein it was held that quantum of pension is a certain percentage correlated to the average emoluments drawn during several years of service rendered.

6. Besides the above submission, learned Counsel for the appellants-petitioners has argued that the issue of granting Old Pension Scheme has not been considered in right perspective. Further, it has been argued that the purpose and objective of the pension scheme is lost which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

7. Sri Indrajeet Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 both have submitted that the State Government has introduced New Pension Scheme w.e.f. 01.04.2005 vide notification dated 28.03.2005. Pursuant to this, the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 and U.P. General Provident Fund Rules, 1985 have also been amended w.e.f. 01.04.2005. Since all the appellants-petitioners have joined their service after 01.04.2005, they all are covered under New Pension Scheme and as per the Scheme framed by the State Government, they are bound to opt for New Pension Scheme. Accordingly, the State Government has issued Government Order dated 21.03.2012 directing the authorities concerned to take action for registration of PRAN. When they did not pay any heed, the State Government issued another three Government Orders on 21.11.2022, 28.11.2022 and 16.12.2022 for registration of PRAN of employees who have joined the services of Assistant Teachers after 01.04.2005. Lastly, he has submitted that the condition imposed in the Government Order dated 16.12.2022 that till registration of PRAN, the salary may no

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