The High Court dismissed a writ challenge against a Central Administrative Tribunal order. The Court held that the respondent, a casual labourer regularized in 2011, falls under the Old Pension Scheme as he was in service prior to the 1-1-2004 cut-off.
The writ application challenging the Tribunal order dated 09.01.2013 was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10474 of 2015
=========================================================== 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, New Delhi.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
Bikrama Singh, Son of Late Shukdev Singh, Resident of Village- Bishunpura, P.O.Ichuwapur, P.S.- Ichuwapur, District- Chapra.
.... .... Respondent
=========================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar (ASG) For the Respondent/s: Mr. M. P. Dixit, Advocate. Mr. S. K. Dixit, Advocate. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chaubey, Advocate.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) Date: 22-08-2016
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10474 of 2015 dt.27-08-2016
2/3
“4. The tribunal, noticing the Full Bench Judgment as well as the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in this regard in favour of the employees, held that they would be covered by the Old Pension Scheme. To us, the problem is simple. The New Pension Scheme would apply to persons coming in Government Service after 1-1-2004. The applicants before the Tribunal were first casual labourers, but with effect from 1989 they acquired the temporary status or the status of a temporary employee of the Government in the Department of Posts. After three years of such continuous service, they were entitled to certain benefits, which a permanent Group-D employee gets. They were receiving the same, pending confirmation in service as a permanent employee. Towards pensionary benefits, G.P.F. deductions were made. Then came cut-off date as 1-1-2004. In the meantime, the vacancies having occurred in the year 2011, they were substantially appointed as permanent employees. They were regularized as permanent employees. To us, the answer would be evident from the fact that they were already in service prior to 1-1-2004, though in a temporary status. To us, it appears that the meaning of the Scheme, which puts the cut-off date as 1-1-2004 is that all those persons, who have come in service after 1-1-2004 would be covered by the New Pension Scheme. As noted and stated above, the applicants before the Tribunal, the respondents herein, were already in service, though in temporary status prior to the cut-
Patna High Court CWJC No.10474 of 2015 dt.27-08-2016
3/3
off date. To them, this cut-off date would not apply, and consequently they would be deemed to be in service on 1-1-2004 having been confirmed as permanent employees in Group-D with effect from 2011. Thus, we find no error in the judgment and order of the Tribunal.”
(Hemant Gupta, J)
Mishra/-
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent cashier labourer regularized after 2004 is covered under the Old Pension Scheme or the New Pension Scheme.
Whether the Division Bench judgment in CWJC No. 17204 of 2015 applies to the present case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The Union of India & Ors. Vs. Mukti Prasad Yadav & Ors.Distinguished¶21
CWJC No. 17204 of 2015 (The Union of India & Ors. Vs. Mukti Prasad Yadav & Ors.)
Union of India and Others
Bikrama Singh
Hemant Gupta
Ahsanuddin Amanullah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
