The old pension scheme is not applicable to individuals who were regularized after the established cut-off date. For instance, the cut-off date of 1.11.2005 was specifically mentioned, indicating that those who became regular after this date are ineligible for the old pension scheme Anil s/o Dnyandeo Sarode VS State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Primary Education Department - Bombay (2017).
Judicial Precedents:
Courts have consistently ruled that individuals appointed or regularized after the cut-off date cannot claim benefits under the old pension scheme. This was affirmed in multiple cases where the petitioners sought to be considered under the old pension scheme despite their appointments being after the cut-off date Vijay Chandra Tewari VS State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand (2023)Union Of India VS Mukti Prasad Yadav - Patna (2015).
Temporary vs. Permanent Status:
In cases where employees had temporary status prior to the cut-off date but were regularized later, the courts have ruled that their eligibility for the old pension scheme is contingent upon their status at the time of regularization. If they were not regularized before the cut-off date, they cannot claim benefits under the old scheme Union Of India VS Mukti Prasad Yadav - Patna (2015)Union of India through the Chief Post Master General VS Shambhu Mishra, son of Late Ram Shreshath Mishra - Patna (2018).
Government Authority:
There have been instances where individuals who were appointed after the cut-off date were granted benefits under the old pension scheme, particularly if they were part of a group that had been offered appointments from the same advertisement as those appointed before the cut-off date Ashok Kumar Singh VS U. P. P. C. L. - Allahabad (2020). This suggests that context and specific circumstances may influence eligibility.
Interim Relief:
Based on the legal documents reviewed, individuals who were regularized after the cut-off date of 1.11.2005 are generally not eligible to claim benefits under the old pension scheme. However, exceptions may exist based on specific circumstances or judicial interpretations in similar cases. It is advisable for clients in such situations to consult with legal counsel to explore any potential avenues for claiming benefits or to understand their specific eligibility based on the nuances of their employment status and the applicable legal precedents.
References: Anil s/o Dnyandeo Sarode VS State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Primary Education Department - Bombay (2017)Vijay Chandra Tewari VS State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand (2023)Union Of India VS Mukti Prasad Yadav - Patna (2015)STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS MADAN MOHAN GHOSH - Calcutta (2004)Ashok Kumar Singh VS U. P. P. C. L. - Allahabad (2020)Vikramjit Kaur VS Union of India - Delhi (2023)CENTRAL BANK RETIREES ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA - Delhi (2010)]
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!