Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
Ravi Raj And Others - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondent
WRIT-A No. 26584 of 2011
Decided On : 07-02-2020
Service Law – Writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice dated 20.04.11 issued by the Additional District Magistrate - writ order or direction of a suitable nature restraining any action on the basis of the impugned notice – writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to treat the petitioners as covered by the Old Pension Scheme applicable prior to 01.04.05 and to extend all benefit thereof to the petitioners – Held, State to some extent appears to be justified in submitting that it could not proceed on the assumption that the order of restraint had come to an end or had expired by efflux of time. In any case the justification or otherwise for the delay that occurred in implementation of the judgment of 4 September 2003 is not an issue on which this Court is called upon to rule. As is manifest from the reliefs which are framed, the sole question which this Court is called upon to decide is the entitlement of the petitioners to seek coverage of the Old Pension Scheme. Viewed in that context it really does not fall for this Court to rule on the justifiability or otherwise of the delay which was allegedly caused in the ultimate implementation of the judgment of 04 September 2003. The claim in any case must fall in light of Rule 2(3) of the 1961 Rules. The Court finds no legally justifiable basis to either ignore its unambiguous command or dilute its rigor by virtue of the alleged delay in conferment of appointment to the petitioners for reasons aforenoted. In view of the aforesaid, the challenge to the impugned order fails – Writ petition dismissed.
Facts of the Case
petitioners had been duly selected in 2001 itself. It was submitted that the final judgment rendered inter partes on 4 September 2003 was never implemented by the State causing grave detriment to the petitioners. It was submitted that the interim orders which operated on the Special Appeal preferred by certain subsequently selected individuals also did not operate after February 2004 and consequently it must be held that there was no impediment operating upon the State from implementing the judgment of the learned Judge rendered on 04 September 2003. It was submitted that the petitioners cannot be placed in a disadvantageous position on account of the inaction and inexplicable delay on the part of the State to implement the judgment rendered inter partes.
Finding of the Court
State to some extent appears to be justified in submitting that it could not proceed on the assumption that the order of restraint had come to an end or had expired by efflux of time. In any case the justification or otherwise for the delay that occurred in implementation of the judgment of 4 September 2003 is not an issue on which this Court is called upon to rule. As is manifest from the reliefs which are framed, the sole question which this Court is called upon to decide is the entitlement of the petitioners to seek coverage of the Old Pension Scheme. Viewed in that context it really does not fall for this Court to rule on the justifiability or otherwise of the delay which was allegedly caused in the ultimate implementation of the judgment of 04 September 2003. The claim in any case must fall in light of Rule 2(3) of the 1961 Rules. The Court finds no legally justifiable basis to either ignore its unambiguous command or dilute its rigor by virtue of the alleged delay in conferment of appointment to the petitioners for reasons aforenoted. In view of the aforesaid, the challenge to the impugned order fails.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vishal Tandon learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. The petition has been preferred principally seeking the following reliefs: -
A writ order or direction of a suitable nature restraining any action on the basis of the impugned notice.
A writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents to treat the petitioners as covered by the Old Pension Scheme applicable prior to 01.04.05 and to extend all benefit thereof to the petitioners.”
2. The principal question which falls for determination is whether the petitioners who were initially selected in 2001 and on account of ensuing litigation came to be appointed only in October 2006 would be entitled to the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme which held the field till 01 April 2005. Undisputedly on 01 April 2005 a New Pension Scheme was promulgated and according to the petitioners since the provisions made in the erstwhile Scheme were more beneficial, they would be entitled to claim coverage under that Scheme notwithstanding the fact that they ultimately came to be appointed only in 2006. For the purposes of answering the question that is raised, the following skeletal facts may be noticed.
3. In August 2001 the Government of U.P. initiated a selection process for appointment of persons on Group-C posts in different Departments of the State. The petitioners applied and participated in that recruitment exercise. They are also stated to have cleared the typing test and declared as qualified. On 24 December 2001 the District Magistrate cancelled the select list and a decision was taken to hold fresh tests. Aggrieved by that decision various writ petitions came to be preferred before this Court including one filed by Sevandra Singh And Others v. State of U. P. And Others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21069 of 2003. The said petition along with connected matters ultimately came to be decided on 04 September 2003 in the following terms.
4. As is evident from the operative directions, the order of the District Magistrate was set aside and a further mandamus issued commanding the respondents to give appointments to selected candidates who formed part of the lists which had been prepared pursuant to the tests held on 03 November 2001 and 07 December 2001. The petitioners admittedly were included in those lists. The judgment of the learned Judge was subjected to an appeal at the behest of some of the candidates who had qualified the subsequent test that had been held on 02 May 2003. One of those Special Appeals was numbered as Special Appeal No. 967 of 2003. On 29 September 2003 while entertaining the appeal, the Division Bench provided that the judgment of the learned Judge impugned therein would remain stayed for a period of three months. When the Appeal was taken up again on 27 January 2004 the Division Bench extended the original interim order for a period of one month with liberty to parties to apply for extension, vacation, modification and/or variation of that order. The aforesaid Appeal remained pending on the board of this Court but the interim order, which was to operate only for a period of 1 month from 27 J
SupremeToday
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
