Dismissed

Chandra Shekhar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC11 Sept 2017W.P.(C)/6585/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi held that the date of joining service, not the date of advertisement or offer, determines eligibility for the Old Pension Scheme. Dismissing multiple writ petitions, the Court ruled that since the petitioners could only join after January 1, 2004, they are bound by the New Pension Scheme and no discrimination exists.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed without any order as to costs.

Chandra Shekhar and Ors. Vs Union of India and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Signing Date:16.10.2024 16:52:42 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.

./■

/ ■yt

X • /.y /<■

For detailed order see W.P. (C) No. 6525/2016, VRamana Murthy &

¶9

Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., pronounced today.

SANJIV KHANNA, J

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

SEPTEMBER 11,2017 NA

IN THE HIGH c|)URT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.jC) 6525/201 Reserved on: 27^July, ^017 Date of Decision;)! September, 2017 V RAMANA MURTHY & 0 R.S iirdugh: Ms.Garima Sachdeva, Adv. versus ^lON OF INDIA &; QRS T Respondents Tjiro igh: Ms.Abha Malhotra, Adv. w.p.rc 10,141/201 C1 / AVELDER GOP A RAJ^ J ORS Petitioners Th roiigh: Ms.Garima Sachdeva, Adv" ve:'•sui UTvION OF INDIA & ORS Th ough; Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC^R espondents W.P.fC) 5904/2017 ne:'RAJ KUMAR SFIARMA ^ ORS ThJou^h: Mr.Kumar Rajesh Singh, versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondents ThrougF Mr.Vikram Jetley, CGSC, UOI with i Mr. Yin3d Kumar, Dy. Comdt., BSF W^RQ_6585mi6 CFIAndra shekhar ane ORS „ J Petitioners Thro ugh: Ms.Garima Sachdeva, Adv iVersr WP(C) I >525/20]6+connccti;d mm atters Page 1 of 16

¶14

UNION OF INDIA AND OR^ T Mr.G.Tushar Rao, MnMafS Shlrma, A M.rC) 3966/2017 % Reserved on: 28"^ July, 2017 Rate of Decision; Aamust, 2017 SAn NTOSFI KUMAR SING] P AND ORS p„,,. I Til - •oukh: Ms. Garima Sachdeva, Advocatr velsus UNION OF INDIA AND 01 :S Thiouih: Ms. Suman Chouhan. AdvSfwift Mr. Jivesh Ti-wari, Advocate

¶15

CO^M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S ANJIV KHANNa ■hoUle MR. JUSTICE

¶16

M^JIVKHANNa, t

¶17

In view of similarity of the^ issue involved in these writ petitions, they are b 'ing disposed of by this cim lion judgment. 2. The petitioners, V Ramanh Murtliy & Ors in W.P. (C) €525l2m, CT/B'elcler Gopa Ram & Ors in W.P. (C) 10141/2016, Neeraj Kumar Sharma c/ & n Qrs ^ in W P /Cl SJOa/omv lyeercij i^iintcir n I , ^ 5^4/2017, were appointed and had joined as Constable (General Duty) in • - anuab, I 2004 and hence. Were not ^'^1 covered under Seeurity the Force Central (BSF) Civi, Servicesafter rSt r (Pensibn) Rules, , 1972 y/z. IhereinTR-Pr (^neremaltei leferred j to as the "niri v>^ ■ S^1^prrlr.''^ T ^ J , i ds me Old Pension Pen ■ ■ 1'^®" covered by the new Contributory the New Pension Scheme")

¶18

WP(C) 6525/2016+connected matters i

¶19

Page 2 ofl6

¶20

¶21

I 2 of the aforesaid PensM^ ^Jply the govenanent ervants appointed o„ or before SI^' December, 2 4. The petitioners pleaJ discrimination and violation .of Article 14 of the ronstltution on the crmnrtr^ fl 4. • , g aH that in the recruitment held for Punjab and anjj had joined beforeise'ilerblrMOa' offhe Old Pension Scheme.

¶22

In W.P. (C) No, 3956/2017, Santosh Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. Union iia and Ors., and W.R (C) Nq 6585/901 n I / 1NO.O585/2016, Chandra Shekhar & Qrs. ci-ntiofi ightly. In T Santosh Kumar I ' Singh Ors the grounds nptf of challenge differ u ^ • . 1 ors., the petitioners- 51 in number^^1^ participated and.were se ected as Sub-Inspectors pursuant to the Central 4-—,fi: pp h ed for -a review by the Review Medical Board. The Review Medical m t'^tlared them 'fit' and thereafter AlTiicTr' - Po,.. roiice ,11""-horce. The petitioners T- """• - -Ml-" in ^^•P. (C) 6585/2016 Chandra Shekhar tfe Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. the • • " ■" also participated in c Ce nt j,il P ohce Organization held ruitment on 7" September, for the post 2003. of ft Sub-Inis a s pector sLd thatin the ufper age limit prescribed was to be seen as on R' a as on 1 August, 2003. The WP(C) 6 525/2016+connected matter! Pages of 16

¶23

i fT

¶24

P titioners in this casp, upL iualifying .he written exantination conducted by the Staff Seieetion Co|ntission. were asked to appear for the Physical EiFiciency Test, medical eji am ination, and interview. The final results were declared-on 22-28 May, 2004 and the 192 petitioners were selected to join the Border Security Ijoree. We may note that the respondents have filed counter affidavit in the wri: Pftition filed by Chandra Shelchar and others, which has been also read in the writ petition filed by Santosh Kumar Singh and others. 6. The petitioners in a , _ I petitions primarily rely upon the n is.on Bench decisions of thi Court in W.P. (C) No. 5400/2010, Avinash Sinoh Vs. UOI & Orh., dated 26 May, 2011, W.P. (C) No.3827/2012, Naveen Kumar Jha Vs. UOI K Ors. dated 2"'' November, 2012, WP (C) Na 3834/2013, Ks. Union of Mia & Ors. 12 February, 2015, and W.P. (C) No.2810/2016, Inspector Rajendra Sinvlt & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. ^ dated 27"^ March, 2017. Pursuant to the decinon of the High Court in t le case of Parmanand Yadav (supra), the respondent no. 2, namely, the Di ector General of the Border Security Force had :ssued the office order da :ed mattir had been examined in dejail and after inler-Ministeriai 2016, aclmowledging consultation,that the .t hah been decided to impieUekt the order of the High Court to extend ene. it of the Old Pension Scheme to ail similarly situated Sub-Inspectors .1 selecl'"'^ ^ J -e t rough Central Police Organizations Examination, 2002,'subject to the ci:ondition that they would no ; be entitled to back wages and seniority, This ivas notwithstanding Rule 2 of the Pension Rules which, as noticed above, states that the old pension scheme would apply to government servants appointed on or before 31 December, 2003.

¶25

WP(C) 6525/2016+connected matters

¶26

■Page 4 of 16

¶27

i !

¶28

High ^discrimination and decisions of the Delhi would?r ' «d plea we he rat,o declared m the said cases. In Annas!. Sing!, (supra) the a itmoners, who had appled for the post of Assistant Com Centrentr al Police PomJ Forced, wei-e As'""'®'Commandant in the declared temporarily medically unfit and were subjected to review rnedica |vaIuation in which they were declared fit on October, 2004. On 2iijd fvemher. 2004, which is 18 days after the 'Ctitioners thcrGin were aJ , , , f«. eandidates who were J-d ftt at the first insLie Joined the Indo-Tihetan Border Poliel! Aesistan. Commandants. fJerJ was po explanation as to why the candidates P were declared medically fit on M-Qctober, 2014 could not be issued appointment letters till 2""'hovimber 2004 Th- tp mvsferv y y and remained • a unexplained. [ Tie petitioner n therein was issueda appointment letter on| 8- Ajgust,, 2O0S, he. after nearly 10 T InllZ7'VT Y CommandZ in as inn™ tl 'h-in was treated ^ TairLrrr T"" " ' was appa-ent for tb' mi no r '«ve ^0 c ''"®"<=''®matances [ " ° over which the was petitioner ignored had and no given control a go-bye ie beingand .1!" mosel lower 177"' down in the m-Ht Uct ; ^.n - —1.» ( _ . ' t)®en declared meditally fit in the first-instJncJ. I„ this context, the Court held ttatie m issue of appointment letters as Assistant Commandants was not the

¶29

WP(C) ( '525/2016+'connected matters

¶30

Page 5 of 16

¶31

rejult of anything created by the petitioner but was a result of a supine inc.ifference and negligence on part of the authorities. Thus, it was directed that he seniority of the entiie batch would be on the basis of merit position m the Select List irrespeetive of the date of joining. Direction was also .ssued to constitute a Revi w Departmental Promotion Committ.ee for the post of Deputy Cornmankant. The facts of the case are' squarely .sjnguishable. I, was a se,Jior|ty dispute, and the injustice of treating the petitioner higher in the merit lisjt as a junior to those lower in the merit list was .ruck down. Fixing of en ority on the basis of date of joining, when' were intervening foituitois circumstances and faults on part of the authorities was m violation of and impinging Article 14 of the Constitution. 8. In the ease of NaveW Kumar Jha (supra), the petitioner had participated in the SCC Coiibiiied Graduate Level Examination-2000 for selejtion to the post of Sub-lJspeetor in Central Para Militaiy Forces. After aviiig cleared the written eximiliatiott and the Physical Efficiency Test, he was Jeclared unfit in the medictl examination, conducted on 4"' February. 2002 The petitioner on Zd'" pibruaiy. 2002 had filed an appeal for being reexamined by the Review Medical Board, but the examination was held after nearly one year on 18"' January, 2003 and he was thereupon declared fit. Others, who were declared medicklly fit at the first instance, had joined the respejtive paramilitaDi forces in llfarch. 2003. However, the petitioner was appoijted as a Sub-Inspector in the CRPF only in April, 2004 and was treated as a member of the Nev, Pension Scheme. Refemng to the decision ri/7c/i \ in Avinash Singh (supra) aiid an earlier decision in W.P. (C) No. 10028/2009, Amrenclra Kumar I Rj. UOI & Ors., the petitioner therein was held entitled to benefit of the 01 d Pjension Scheme. WP(C) 6: 25/2016+connected mattei's Page 6 of 16

¶32

In the case oiParmanand Yadav (supra), the position was somewhat siiT liar and the decision in tlie iaid case makes reference, to Naveen Kumar Jhc and Avinash Singh su])ra). The petitioners therein had applied pur nuant to the advertiteme|t jjublished in Employment News in 2002 for the post of Sub-Inspectors- :n the four Central Paramilitao- Forces. The resLi Its were declared on 28- July, 2003 and letters offering appointment in CIS , CRPF and Indo-Tibetrn Ilorder Police were issued in October, 2003. Ho'vi'iever, in the case of-BSF, tl .e letters of appointment were issued in the I month of December, 2003. Due .0 this delay, the date of joining in the BSF was after January, 2004. Ths New Pension Scheme was implemented with effect from 1» January 2^04. Consequently, the petitioner therein were denied benefit of the Old Pension Scheme as they had joined BSF, but othejs who had appeared in thl same examination and had joined o'ther para: ii^ilitary forces, were covtiec: under the old pension scheme. Directions were accordingly issued that tie ])etitioners therein must be given benefit of the Old Pension Scheme, which was in vogue till 3V' December, 2003, and they must not be treatled as members of the New Pension Scheme. Cons quently, the respondenti ujlon consideration, as noticed above, have issued order dated 13^'' Janiar> , 2016, stating that the Sub-Inspectors seiectgi:d through Central Polled Organizations Examination, 2002 would be entitle! :d to benefit of the Old I ension Scheme, which was in vogue till 3H' Deceriber, 2003. i 10. The position in the case Df 'nspector Rajendra Singh & Ors. (supra) is som ewhat-similar. The petitioners therein had applied and appeared in the Centri Police Organizations Exahiination, 2002 for the post of Inspector. Howeiner, they- were declarec njiedically unfit, but were subsequently

¶33

WP(C) 6 25/2016+connected matters

¶34

Page 7 of]6

¶35

declared fit on medical examination by the Review Medical Board. Having regai'd to the circumstances o the case, it was held to be grossly unfair and arbitrary to deny the petitioners benefit of the Old Pension Scheme because of fortuitous circumstances wiich were beyond their control. There was an more.mate delay in holding ol the review medical examination. It was also noticed that the petitioners and ithers had opted for the BSF. If they had knovm that by opting for the s aid paramilitary force they would be deprived of th benefit of the Old |Pens on Scheme, they might not have opted for the said :orce. I 11. One contention and objection raised by the respondents in Inspector Raje ndra Singh and Ors. (sujira) was delay and laches. The contention was rejec;ed, because of parlous d:scfimination. Noticeably, we may record that the authorities had in |the earlier cases, of Naveen Kumar Jha and Parmanand Yadav (supr,a) not taken the plea of delay and laches. In these circumstances, we should, fol owing the ratio in Inspector Rajendra Singh and Ors. (supra), not allow he respondents to take the said plea in the present writ petition. A word of caution-on the question of delay and laches is recjuired. The new Pension Scheme is contributory, as the Government also :ontributes to the pension fund which is maintained by a third party. Belated challenges, and claims to jbe covered under the Old Pension Scheme even after a decade would result h immense prejudice for the positions have changed, and restitution jwould n()t be possible. This would be contrary to, and impermissible under "the tenns of the statutory new pension scheme, i which does not specify or fix e stipulated return. It may be important for the Government to retrieve their con ribution under the New Pension Scheme, The employees who are also covered under the New Pension Scheme would WP(C) 5525/2016-t-connected matters Page 8 of 168 of 16of 1616

¶36

Page 8 of 168 of 16of 1616

¶37

¶38

ha\ e to abide by the terms thereof. The retracing of steps or turning back the clopk may not be possible. 12. On studied examination we feel the petitioners in the present writ pettions are not entitjed to saceeed and the writ petitions have to be dismissed, for in the present case there is no discrimination or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 13. The cases relating to selection to the post of Sub-Inspector vide Ceritral Police Organizatiorjis examination, 2003 stand altogether on a diffi;rent footing. None of the candidates who were successful in the said St examination were issucjl appointment letters or had joined on or before 31 December, 2003. The fact th at tjhe examination was held in 2003 would not con hr or give them any righi 'he cut-off date of 31" December, 2003 and the condition or stipulation treating.government servants who had joined on. or before 31'' DecembeJ:, 20( 3 £,s a separate class is not discriminatory and miq litous. The criteria fixing the date of joining and not the date of advertisement or written examination cannot be faulted as discriminatory or inequitable and, therefore, contrary to Article 14. The relied upon judgments do hot hold so. This is not their ratio, finding and direction. A similar cont mtion was raised and rejec ed by this Court in Shailender Kumar & Ors. Vs. Delhi High Court thro igli Registrar General & Am., 189 (2012) DLl 524. The petitioners therein were issued appointment letters prior to 31" December, 2003, but the actual date of joining was post 31" December, 200; . The contention was rej cted, inter alia, holding as under:"2. The main ccintenlion of the petitioners is that the offer of. appointment having been jmade to them prior to 1.1.2004 and their inability to join the post by 31.12.2003 not being attributable to any

¶39

wp(c; 6525/2016+connected matters

¶40

Page 9 of 16

¶41

¶42

lapse on their part, the benefit of CGS (Pension) Rules, cannot be denied to theni....Tie Government was well within its right to discontinue the app icability of CGS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and applying a new pension scheme to those who were to join the service after promulgation , of the new pension scheme. It was for the Government to decide, in its wisdom, as to whether it wanted to apply the new pension scheme to those who had entered service on or after 1.1.2004 or to-those v^ho were offered appointment on or after 1.1.2004. The i Government having decided to discontinue the applicability of GGS (Pdnsion) Rules and to extend the new pension scheme to all those who were to join service on or after 1.1.2004, irrespective of the date on which offer of appointment was made to them, the petitioners do not have any legal right to claim applicability of GGS (Pension) Rules, 1972 to them. It is not as if the new pension scheme.has beenJntrc duced after the petitioners had joined service of the Government. Th; petitioners were not in the service of the Government prior to i. 1.2004 and, therefore, they had no right to the posts of LDC in DistHct Sessions Gourt, when the new scheme was promulgated by the Govsrnment. Thus, this is not a case of service condition of the employees being varied by- the Government to their detriment. Even| if the petitioners could not join the sendee on or before 31.12.2003 on account of no fault on their part that would make no difference since: the relevant .date is the date of joining the service and not the cate on which the employment was offered to them. If we accept the coiitentioh'that the offer of appointment having been made to the petitioners prior to 1.1.2004, they are entitled to be governed by GGS (Pension) Rules, that would be contrary to the terms of the scheme fraihed by the .Government. We must take note of the fact that their necessarily has to be some time lag between the making of offer jfor appointment and the selected candidate joining the service of the Gevernment because medical examination and police verification must necessarily precede the joining of service by him If the medical exaitination of some persons who are offered employment along with he petitioners was conducted and/or their police verification was done before the medical examination and/or police verificatioli of Ihe petitioners and consequently, those persons were able to join| serv: ce on or before 31.12.2003 no benefit on that account accrues to the petitioners since completion of medical

¶43

WP((!) 6525/2016+connected matters

¶44

Page 10 of 16

¶45

examination and poIic(j v dfication depends upon a lot of factors including the place where the candidate is residing, the hospital in which he is to be medievally examined, the date fixed by that hospital for medical examination, j the time taken by the concerned police official in verification 3f the antecedents etc. If a person is offered employment say in las Week of December, 2003, he cannot claim benefit of CCS (Pension) Rules because some time is necessarily required for his medickl ixamination and police verification and, therefore, it will not bi p')ssible for him to join the service of the Government on or befoi^e 3 1.12.2003.

¶46

xxxx

¶47

However, in the case bejfore us, there was no order passed by any Court restraining the .cbpondents re from making appointments to the post of LDC in District & Sessions Court. They were in a position to join seiwice soom aftir their medical examination and police verification was complkeJr I ' On the other vnivx iictHLij hand, in HI the LJLiC case UctuL' of Ux Dr.JL/I* Pawan Kumar N. Mali (supra), relief was granted to the petitioners. primarily applying the Drinciple that the order of the Court cannot prejudice anyone. Had th^re been no stay order in that case, the respondents in that ckse would have joined service prior to 01.01.2004, since not only the-offer of appointment had been made to them, even their medical examination-had been conducted well before the cut-off date of Ol.C,1.^004. They-were prevented from joining service, only because of stay order granted by the Court. On the other hand, none of the peti:ioners before this Court could have been allowed to join service prior to 01.01.2004 since the character verification in respect o all the three petitioners was received after 31.12.2003. This judgment. therefore, cannot be applied to the case before us.

¶48

This is not the case oln the petitioners that their inability to join on or before 31.12.2003 wass attributable to any negligence or lapse on the part of the respond^mts. If inability of the petitioners to join service on or before 31. ]12 .^003 is not attributable to the respondents or to any order passed by a Court and was only on account of the time taken by the Hospftal/Police in conducting medical examination and police verification, Hhe petitioners cannot claim parity with the petitioners in the case olf Dr. Pawan Kumar N. Mali (supra). For the

¶49

WP(C) 6 >25/2016+connected matters

¶50

Page 1 1 of 16

¶51

reasons given in the jireic eding paragraphs, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed." 14. An identical vievy has bedn taken in Sanjay Kumar Tltakur & Ors. Vs. 'Vori/t Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., 236 (2017) DLT 163 (DB), wherein reference was made to other case laws. In paragraph 18 oftle said judgment, it has be en held:

¶52

"18. We are not jnclhed to .accept the reasoning of the Central Administrative Tribunk, Emakulam Bench in the decision dated 28.06.2013 in OA No• 224/2012, P. Rajesh Kumar v. The Union of India, which records thM benefit of the old pension scheme would be available to the applicint^ therein for the reason that the vacancies period prior to N'January, 2004.. The „ .f nadceptable in view of the prescribed cut-off date of 1.1.2004, with rfefejence to the date of Joining and not the date of vacancies. The afordsaid criterion, , i.e. the date of joining, is not ar but... Jg salutaiy and good reason. Courts cannot substitute the said driterion with another criterion as has been done by the Tribunal in thd case of P. Rajesh Kumar (supra), wherein the date of vacancy, it has been observed, would be the fair and just criterion. This is irhpermissible and eannot be accepted. The courts or lit "I o 1 1-1 .-X .... 1 . J "f * •€ -• .. judicial forums cannot Ibgi:ilate and substitute dates. It is well-settled that the courts do hot ir.terfere with cut-off date as these are matters of discretion and' within the domain of the Executive or the Legislature. The power] to specify a date from which terminal or pensionary benefits, . a the .case may be, shall take effect is concomitant of the power of the State or Corporation to change the conditions of service unilaterally. So long as the date specified is reasonable and not- wa5ward with reference to the requirement of fixing a point of time et:., ho interference by the Court is called for. (SQe State of West Bengal v. Ratan Behari Dey (1993) 4 SCC 62). When classification is permissible, choice of date being a basis of classification, the date so fiked cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reajon is forthcoming for the choice unless it is shown to be capripious or] whimsical in the given circumstances, When a line or point if to be fixed and there is no mathematical I WP(C) 6525/2016+connected matters Page 12 of 16

¶53

formula or logical way to fix the same precisely, the decision of the Legislature or its delegate ijnust be accepted unless it can be said that the date or point so fix d is widely off the reasonable mark. (See Union of India v.Pammeswamn Matchworks (1975) 1 See 305 and A. Manjula Bhc'shiniv.A.P. Women's Coop Finance Corpn. Ltd. (2009) 8 see'431). w:lenever a law is enacted or an amendment is made, the same has to be with effect from a particular date. When it is otherwise permissible an1 legitimate to fix a date, the date so fixed is open to scrutiny • or the limited grounds of whimsicality and capriciousness. If the cljioic:e made is burdensome to those to whom the wrong done is sought toj be rectified, it would be open to the Court to examine the choice of date and find out whether it has resulted in any discriminatiori. (See A Prabhakar Rao y. State of A,P.,\9%5 Supp see 432). Further, it is a well-settled and accepted principle of law that the name of a c andidate appearing on a select list would not give him an indefeasibld right to appointment and it would be open to the Government to not fill lap the vacancies. The Government cannot be compelled to fill up vacancies where the decision not to do so is sound and rational, especially in .the case of direct recruits. (See Neelima Shangla v State ofHaryana (1986) 4 SCO 268), Manoj Manuv. f/O/(2013) 12 SCO 111, Kulwinder Pal Singh y. State of Punjab (2016) 6 SCO 5^2). Thus, we would hold that there can be a gap between the date of vacancy, selection and appointment. On some occasions, appointments mdy not,be made at all or may be made after a long delay." j

¶54

15: ■When we turn to the v/rit petitions filed by V. Ramana Murthy & Othei";•s, Neeraj Kumar Sharma & Others, and Constable Welder Gopa Ram & 0ijhers it is noticed that th ! plea of discrimination is predicated on the contention that some cjther candidates were selected for the post of eons able (GD) in the BST pr rsuant to the recruitment rally held in Punjab i and Haryana in October/Noverhber, 2003 and in the said cases, the appointment letters were issu'td ip December, 2003. However, in the case of V. Ramana Murthy & Othe: s, advertisement for the Recruitment rally for

¶55

WP(C) 6525/2016+connectedmatters

¶56

Page13of16

¶57

the State of Andhra Pradesh, Kariataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Lakshadweep and ondicherry States/Union Territoiy was published in August, 2003. Thereafter, Recruitment rally was held in Bangalore in October, 2003 and appo ntment letters were [issued on or after 1'^ January, 2004. In the case of Constable Welder Gopai Rair & Others, advertisement was published in Augist/September, 2003 for [recruitment rallies to be held at SHQ, BSF Camjjus, Bikaner, Rajasthan on 10 ^ October, 2003. After the selection process, appointment letters ^erb issued in February/March, 2004. In the case of Constable Neeraj I luijiar Sharma & Others pursuant to the advei tisement published 'in September, 2003, recruitment rally was held in October/November, 2003 at C^hhiwla, Najafgarh Road, Delhi. Thereafter, call letters were issued in Deceriber, 2003 and candidates were asked to appear before the Commandant cn 5"^ and lO"' January, 2004. The date of joinir g was subsequent ,fo I January, 2004. Thus, the petitioners were denied benefit of the Old Pension Scheme. 16. Selection process does take time for varied and different reasons. It is not tle case of the petitioners hat there was a deliberate delay in the selection process. There!could hi a variety of administrative and logistical reasons or causes for the time taken to complete the selection process and issue the appointment letters, vhibh J we do not find is per se inordinate and prolonged. Today after nearly 14 years, it would be impossible and unfair to ask the. respondents to offer and give cogent explanation as to the reason why the selection and issue of apnointment letters took the time that it did. The f etitioners have remained silent during the intervening period and had apparently accepted the position ;hat they would be governed by the New, Pension Scheme. Scheme. There werwer sparate advertisements, each initiating a

¶58

Pension Scheme. Scheme. There werwer

¶59

WP(C) )525/2016+connecled matters Page 14 of 16

¶60

_7£

¶61

separite selection process. Exped.tious and early selection and appointment of candidates subsequent to the recruitment rally held in Punjab and Haryana cannot be a ground to urge that there was discrimination and asked, counsel for the petitioners have viola;ion of parity. On being accepted and admitted that the pe itioners have not challenged or questioned the seniority of those selected and appointed in the recruitment rally held in Punjab and Haryana. The dale df joining, as per Rules, is the criterion to determine inter se seniority. The late of initiation of the recruitment process is not the criterion. This being the position, the ratio in Sanjay Kumar Thaicur & Ors. (supraj and Shailendra Kumar & Ors. (supra) would be appl cable. The other set' of decisions, which have been distinguished above, wou d not apply. In the said cases some officers from the same batch of candidates, i.e. same selectior prDcess had joined before 31.12.2003, but the petfioner" for fortuitous reasons had joined later. Thus some candidates from the same selection prc cejs were .given benefit of the Old Pension Sch(;me, but other candidates who could, not-join earlier for no fault of and were treated as members of the New thei •s, were denied the benefit Pension Scheme. This is not the position in the present case, 17 However, as a matter of abundant caution, we would observe and clarify that in case any of the selected candidates belonging to the same ntdd benefit of the Old Pension Scheme, which selection batch have been gri the petitioners have been deaie i, the petitioners would be entitled to raise the said claim before the authDrities and, if denied the said benefit, can approach the appropriate forum for relief. The aforesaid observations would not confer any right on the petitioners who are not being discriminated, in the sense that they have been denied the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme,

¶62

WP(C) 6525/2016+connected matters

¶63

Page 15 of 16 n

¶64

whe:■eas others appointed and selected through the same selection process, i.e. oursuant to the same ad•verdsement and recruitment rally, have been COViered under the old pension sc.leme. 18. With the aforesaid ob serr ations and caveat, the writ petitions are dismissed without any order as tc costs. ' ' {1 ^ (SANJIVKHANNA) JUDGE rf (NAVIN CHAWLA) M*JUDGE Sept :mber// , 2017 NA/5s sn

¶65

WP(C) 5525/2016+connectedmatters	Page16of16

Chandra Shekhar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Shekhar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Shiv Shakti Khadya Bhandar Vs the Special Commissioner & Ors.

Kumari Bandna and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Chand Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Bansal Lube Traders Vs Commissioner, Trade & Taxes & Anr.

Surya Recreation Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Principal Comniissioner of Income Tax (Tds) & Ors.

Fariyaad Foundation through Its President,Ravi Pratap Singh Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

National Human Rights Commission Vs Central Information Commission & Anr.

National Human Rights Commission Vs Central Information Commission & Anr.

Ct/Cd Rambabu Chandrawanshi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rameshwar Dayal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Nityanand Vs Union of India & Anr.

V Ramana Murthy & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Santosh Kumar Singh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Man Singh Deshmukh Vs Union of India & Ors.