Entitlement to pension benefits is contingent on appointment against a pensionable post before the specified date, and equal treatment of similarly situated persons is mandated under Article 14 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

Petitioners, in these writ petitions, were appointed in recognized Junior High Schools, which were not receiving any financial aid from the State Government at the relevant point of time. Token grant of Rs. 1,00,000/- was given to those Schools vide Government Order dated 24.05.2005. Those Schools were subsequently included in the grant-in-aid list by the State Government vide order dated 30.03.2007. According to petitioners, since token grant was given to the schools where they were serving, vide Government Order dated 24.05.2005, and New Pension Scheme was introduced only w.e.f. 01.10.2005, therefore, petitioners are entitled to benefit of Old Pension Scheme, as they came to be appointed in government aided schools much earlier, i.e. on 24.05.2005.

2. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, therefore are being taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1839 of 2017 alone are being considered.

3. Harish Singh Bisht has filed Writ Petition (S/S) No.1839 of 2017, seeking the following substantive reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give the petitioner the benefit of Government Pension Scheme (GPF) as prevalent prior to 01-10-2005 (as per ANNEXURE No-7).

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner’s services as regular government employee/teacher from the date of 24 May 2005/ date of petitioner school coming under the government grant with all consequential benefits.

iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give the petitioners benefit of Time Scale Salary along with interest in parity with the judgment dated 27-03-2017 passed by this Hon’ble High Court in WPSS No.1955/2015 (ANNEXURE No-9).”

4. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Danu Junior High School, Bindukhatta, District Nainital, w.e.f. 16.02.2001; at the time of his appointment, the School was not receiving any financial aid from the State Government. Vide Government Order dated 24.05.2005, token grant of Rs. 1,00,000/- was given to the said School and, thereafter, vide Government Order dated 30.03.2007, the said School was included in the grant-in-aid list of the State Government. It is contended that the New Pension Scheme was introduced in respect of State Employees and Employees of Government Aided Educational Institutions w.e.f. 01.10.2005 and since token grant was given to the concerned School vide Government Order dated 24.05.2005, therefore, petitioner is to be treated as employee of an aided school w.e.f. 24.05.2005, thus he is entitled to pension, as per Old Pension Scheme.

5. From perusal of the record, it is revealed that Additional Secretary, Education Department, Government of Uttarakhand issued a Government Order on 24.05.2005, whereby sanction for releasing token grant of Rs.1,00,000/- was given in respect of 19 private unaided Junior High Schools. By the same Government Order, 80 other private unaided Educational Institutions were included in the grant-in-aid list of the State Government. The 19 Non-Government Recognized Junior High Schools, which were granted token grant vide Government Order dated 24.05.2005, were included in the grant-in-aid list of the State Government by a separate Order dated 30.03.2007.

6. Petitioner contends that since the Institution, in which he was appointed, was given token grant vide Government Order dated 24.05.2005, therefore, the date of issuance of said Government Order is to be treated as date of his substantive appointment in Government Aided Junior High School, as such benefit of Old Pension Scheme deserves to be extended to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Director’s letter dated 24.03.2006 and consequential letter dated 24.08.2006 issued by Finance & Accou