Allowed

Shyam Kumar Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC9 Apr 2019W.P.(C)/1358/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi Judicial Bench allowed a petition filed by CRPF Assistant Commandants seeking entitlement to the Old Pension Scheme based on their 2003 examination qualification, overruling the application of the New Pension Scheme mandated in 2003 for non-Armed Forces. Relying on precedents regarding the Border Security Force, the court held the Petitioners should not be deprived of this benefit and di

What did the court decide?

Dictated that the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme be extended to the Petitioners and consequential orders be passed within eight weeks.

Shyam Kumar Choudhary & Ors. Vs Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

¶3

- W.P. (C) 1358/2017

¶4

SHYAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber and Mr Bhanu Gupta, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Anurag Ahluwalia, Advocate for UOI.

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 09.04.2019

¶10

This petition has been filed by 14 Petitioners all of whom are Assistant Commandants in the Central Reserve Police Force (‘CRPF’). All of them applied pursuant to the notification dated 10^th -16^th May, 2003 which was advertised by the UPSC and qualified in the Central Police Forces (Assistant Commandant) Examination, 2003. On the date of the advertisement, the Old Pension Scheme under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 was applicable.

¶11

The new Contributory Pension Scheme was introduced by a notification dated 22^nd December, 2003 and implemented with effect from 1^st January, 2004. By a notification dated 22^nd December 2003, it was stated that the new scheme would not be applicable to Armed Forces and that they would be governed by the Old Pension Scheme. It is further pointed out that the Ministry of Home Affairs (‘MHA’) by a communication dated 6^th August,

¶12

W.P. (C) 1358/2017 Page 1 of 3

¶13

2004, clarified that the CRPF was an Armed Force of the Union of India under the administrative control of the MHA. It is accordingly contended that the Petitioners were entitled to the Old Pension Scheme.

¶14

The Petitioners relied on the decision dated 12^th February, 2015 of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 3834 / 2013 ( Parmanand Yadav v. Union of India ) wherein, in relation to the BSF, it was held that those who had participated in the examination of 2003, would be covered by the Old Pension Scheme, even if they had been offered letters of appointment only after 1^st January, 2004. When the representations made by the Petitioners, that the old pension scheme should be extended to them was rejected, the present petition was filed.

¶15

Pursuant to the notice issued in the present petition, the Respondents have filed their counter affidavit and an additional affidavit.

¶16

The issue is no longer res integra. In the case of certain constables of the BSF, this Court by its judgment dated 12^th February, 2019 in Tanka Ram v. Union of India 2019 (174) DRJ 146 (DB) allowed the prayer of those Petitioners and permitted them to avail of the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme. It was held that the option to continue the Old Pension Scheme should be extended to all those who had been selected in the examination conducted in 2003, but were issued call letters in only in January or February, 2004.

¶17

In the present case also, the reason the Petitioners not joining prior to 1^st January, 2004 is entirely due to the Respondents. The Petitioners cannot be

¶18

W.P. (C) 1358/2017 Page 2 of 3

¶19

deprived of the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme, as they qualified even prior to the notification of the New Pension Scheme.

¶20

For the above reasons, the petition is allowed and direction is issued to the Respondents to extend the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme to each of these Petitioners and pass consequential orders within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶21

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

I.S. MEHTA, J.

APRIL 09, 2019

W.P. (C) 1358/2017 Page 3 of 3

Shyam Kumar Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Kumar Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & 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

Lalit Kumar Saxena Vs the Institute of Coast Accountants of India & Anr.

National Projects Construction Corporation Limited (Npcc) Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Seema Sharma Vs Aditi Mahavidyalaya & Ors.

M/S Bright Star Traders Vs Union of India and Anr.

Puneet Kochhar Vs Iitl, Nimbus, (through It'S Director/Ceo/Chairman) and Anr.

Mr. Vipin Vs Airport Authority of India

Apoorva Dabas and Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Shri Shantanu Basu Vs Union of India and Anr.

Ravneesh Kuamr , Ex. Ct/Gd Vs Union of India and Ors.

Bhupinder Singh Vs General Manager (Hrm) & Disciplinary Authority, Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Harbir and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Natco Pharma Ltd. Vs Novartis Ag & Ors.

Ashok Kumar & Sons (Huf) Vs Brahma City Private Ltd.

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Gnct Delhi & Ors.