Employees appointed during lapsed ordinance period under NPS not entitled to old pension; retrospective Act saves prior actions; challenge barred by limitation; policy cut-off upheld.

ORDER

Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member

These 44 applicants have joined together in assailing the validity of Sections 20 and 56 of the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority Act 2013, hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2013 and challenging the correctness of Annexure-A89 Resolution and Annexure-A91 order passed by the 3^rd respondent rejecting their representations. They want a declaration that they are entitled to the benefit of statutory pension scheme under the Pensions' Act 1871 and CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972.

2. All of them are employees under the respondents 2 and 3 appointed on different dates as shown in the table below:

3. According to the applicants, as a prelude to the implementation of National Pension System, the Union Government had issued Interim Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority Ordinance, which had lapsed on 07.04.2005. But, such an Authority was restored only through Annexure-A89 Resolution of the Ministry of Finance dated 14.11.2008. Later, Act 2013 was passed only in 2013, for which Presidential assent was received on 18.09.2013 and published in the Gazette on 19.09.2013. According to the applicants, during the interregnum, between 07.04.2005 and 14.11.2008, there was a vacuum. All the applicants were appointed on the respective cadres and dates during this period. That means, they should be treated having appointed under the non-contributory statutory pension scheme covered by CCS(Pension) Rules. Accordingly, they gave representations, Annexures-A45 to A88, which were not considered, which prompted them to approach the Tribunal with O.A.578/2020. This Tribunal, by Annexure-A90 order dated 03.12.2020, directed the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order. However, Annexure-A91 order and similar orders were passed rejecting the contentions of the applicants and that made the applicants to approach the Tribunal again seeking the aforementioned reliefs.

4. According to the applicants, since they were appointed between the period 07.04.2005 and 14.11.2008 when the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority Ordinance was not in existence, they are entitled to get the benefits of Pensions' Act 1871 and CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972. The representations given by the applicants were not properly considered, the Annexure-A91 order is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be quashed. Further, it is submitted that the notifications inviting applications for the post of Mechanic etc., against which applicants had applied and were later selected and appointed, did not contain any stipulation that they would be governed by the New Pension System. Sections 20 and 56 of Act 2013 is unconstitutional and void since it violates Article 123 of the Constitution. Retrospective effect granted to the provisions of the Act is unreasonable, excessive and harsh. Such provision were incorporated against several judicial pronouncements on the subject.

5. Respondents 1 to 3 opposed the prayers in the O.A. submitting that the application is barred by limitation. According to them, the cause of action had arisen between 2005 and 2008, but the O.A. was filed only on 05.11.2021. Even a belated representation will not revive the cause of action. The cause of action should be reckoned prior to 14.11.2008 and Annexure- A91 has no bearing on this a