Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
Gaurav Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
Bank of Baroda through Chairman and Managing Director and others - Respondents
WRIT -A NO. 29575 OF 2014
Decided On : 21-05-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. entitlement to pension benefits depends on appointment date. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's appointment and correspondence details. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's disapproval of bank's cancellation of appointment. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. petitioner seeks seniority and benefits from the date of appointment. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. counsel's arguments regarding ops and nps applicability. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. legal representation emphasized entitlement to pension schemes. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 7. legal interpretations regarding appointment and pension scheme. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 8. differing applications of law based on the timing of appointments. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 9. current rulings affecting pension rights of newly appointed employees. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 31) |
| 10. court's acknowledgment of the petitioner's position and previous rulings. (Para 30 , 32 , 36) |
| 11. mandamus issued for recognition of rights based on historical appointment. (Para 37) |
| 12. court allows petitioner's claim for ops benefits due to appointment date. (Para 38 , 39) |
| 13. final orders and communication instructions for compliance. (Para 40 , 41) |
JUDGMENT :
HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
The question involved in this petition is if the petitioner was appointed on 30.05.2008 or a date after 01.04.2010 so as to entitle him, in the former case, to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme [‘OPS’ for short], and in the latter, subject him to a regime of the National Pension System, popularly known as the New Pension Scheme[‘NPS’ for short].
2. The petitioner says that he was appointed after 01.04.2010. There were, on this issue, dependant other rights of the petitioner as well vis-à-vis the private respondents, but, since the petitioner is no longer in the Bank’s service, the issue is limited to the question about entitlement to pension, as already indicated.
3. The facts giving rise to this petition are these :
The petitioner says that he holds a decree of Bachelor of Engineering earned from the Pune University and a degree of Master of Science (Finance) from the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India [‘ICFAI’ for short] University. During the period of time that the petitioner was still pursuing his course of Master of Science[‘M.Sc.’ for short], a campus selection was held, where the Bank of Baroda, represented by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to this petition, selected the petitioner for appointment as an officer in JMG/S-I Grade. On the 22nd of February, 2008, the General Manager (HR and Marketing) Bank of Baroda[‘Bank’ for short] sent a letter to the petitioner, saying that the he had been found eligible to be considered for appointment as an Officer, JMG/S-I and that the offer made was subject to the petitioner securing 60% or more marks in the final examinations of his M.Sc. (Finance) at the ICFAI School of Finance Studies, Hyderabad. The petitioner was asked to accept the offer on a copy of the letter, which he did the same day. The petitioner got more than 60% marks in his final examination of M.Sc. (Finance) and on 12.06.2008, the petitioner received Letter No. BCC/HRC/CAMPUS/100/950 dated 30.05.2008 sent by the Manager (HR and Marketing) of the Bank, saying that the petitioner has been appointed as an officer in the Junior Management Grade/Scale-I in the generalist category, which is equivalent to a Class II post.
4. The petitioner sent his acceptance through speed post on 12.06.2008. On the same day, the petitioner reported to the General Manager of the Bank, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand Zone, Lucknow. He was directed to get himself medically examined and the doctor certified him fit for Bank service.
5. On 18.06.2008, the General Manager (HR and Marketing) of the Bank issued a letter, saying that the authority had observed from the records submitted by the petitioner that he does not fulfill the maximum age criteria as prescribed by the Bank i.e. 30 years of age as on date, and, therefore, the Bank have withdrawn the offer of provisional appointment made vide letter dated
AI
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....
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....
Delays in appointing candidates due to state inaction invalidate their placement under the new pension scheme, permitting claims to the old scheme benefits.
Coverage under Old Pension Scheme is determined by appointment date, not recruitment process commencement; arbitrary denial underlay by legal precedent is unsupported.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that employees appointed in fully aided posts prior to 01-11-2005 are entitled to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme, regardless of the date of ....
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
