Dismissed

Union of India & Ors. v. Sahansra Pal

Delhi HC19 Jan 2024W.P.(C)/9470/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Union of India's writ petition challenged a Tribunal order directing grant of Old Pension Scheme benefits to its former employee. The court held it would be unfair to deny the benefit for non-submission of an option form under OM dated 03.03.2023, since relief was already granted by the Tribunal, and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to extend Old Pension Scheme benefit to respondent with necessary adjustments of payments, if any.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Sahansra Pal — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 9470/2023 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Ms. Krishna Chaitanya, Mr. Raj Kumar Maurya, Advs. versus SAHANSRA PAL ..... Respondent Through: Mr. P. Nagesh, Sr. Adv with Mr Akshay Sharma, Adv

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR O R D E R % 19.01.2024

¶5

CM APPL. 66875/2023 -Dir. by Res.

¶6

This is an application filed by the respondent seeking dismissal of the writ petition with directions to the petitioner nos.2 & 3 i.e., his erstwhile employers to extend the benefit of the Pension Scheme under the CSS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (commonly known as the Old Pension Scheme) to him.

¶7

Issue notice. Learned counsel for the petitioners accepts notice.

¶8

Learned senior counsel for the respondent/applicant submits that vide the impugned order, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal has directed the petitioners to extend the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme to the respondent. He submits that now that the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions has itself come up with a OM dated 03.03.2023 giving an option to all similarly situated employees, who were appointed against posts which were advertised or notified before 01.01.2004 and the admitted position that the respondent was appointed against a post which was notified before

¶9

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 18:41:12

¶10

01.01.2004, the petition deserves to be dismissed with directions to the petitioner to immediately extend the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme to the respondent.

¶11

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners while not denying that such an option has been granted to all similarly placed employees submits that the grant of this benefit was subject to the employee submitting a specific option form. He submits that since the respondent did not submit any option in terms of OM dated 03.03.2023, the petitioners cannot be faulted for not extending the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme to him.

¶12

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that though the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in urging that the respondent did not submit any specific option in response to the OM dated 03.03.2023, the fact remains that this relief was already granted to him by the Tribunal under the impugned order. Once the respondent had already succeeded before the learned Tribunal in his claim for being governed by the Old Pension Scheme, we can appreciate his reluctance to submit another option form for the same relief as invited vide OM dated 03.03.2023. We are, therefore, of the considered view that in the light of these peculiar circumstances, when the learned Tribunal had already accepted the respondent’s claim for extending the benefit of Old Pension Scheme to him, it will be unfair to deprive him of the benefit extended by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, merely because he had not opted under the OM dated 03.03.2023. The application, therefore, deserves to be allowed. The same is, accordingly, allowed by dismissing the writ petition and

¶13

¶14

directing the petitioners to extend the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme to the respondent after making necessary adjustments of payments, if any.

¶15

The next date fixed in the matter stands cancelled.

¶16

REKHA PALLI, J

¶17

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J

¶18

JANUARY 19, 2024/ al

¶19

Union of India & Ors. v. Sahansra Pal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India & Ors. v. Sahansra Pal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs Dr. Rohini Pakhiddey

Subhojit Chatterjee Vs Union of India and Ors..

Shri Venkateshwar Constructions-Vdb Projectes (P) Ltd. (Jv) Vs Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Govt of India

Ms Shivansh Associates Vs Ms Roop Raj Banquet Restro Bar and Ors.

Chandra Shekhar Vs the State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Maj B S Maan Vs Union of India and Others

Sunil Kumar Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

All India Institute of Medical Sciences Vs Ms Veeena Gaba

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs Dr. Rohini Pakhiddey

Pritam Dahiya and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Delhi Police, through Its Commissioner and Ors. Vs Kanwar Singh

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs Dr. Pranav Kapoor & Anr.

Munna Vs Muncipal Corporation of Delhi

Guru Nanak Public School & Anr. Vs Ruchi Malhotra & Anr.