Dismissed

Rajasthan Housing Board v. Sunil Chaturvedi S/O Shri Ramesh Chand

Rajasthan HC17 Nov 2021SAW/688/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the Board's special appeal challenging a Single Judge order which allowed an employee to opt for the old Pension Scheme, 1993, instead of the New Contributory Pension Scheme, 2004. The Court held the new scheme applied only to appointments on or after 01.01.2004.

What did the court decide?

Special appeal dismissed; employee entitled to pension under Pension Scheme, 1993.

Rajasthan Housing Board Vs Sunil… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 688/2020

¶3

Rajasthan Housing Board, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Secretary.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sunil Chaturvedi S/o Shri Ramesh Chand, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of 722/31, Deep Bhawan, Nagra, Ajmer (Raj.)

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Appellant(s) : Mr. J.K. Singhi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Anuroop Singhi and Mr. Tarun Kumar Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.C. Taylor with Ms. Vandana Chouhan

¶9

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶10

Order

¶11

17/11/2021

¶12

Present one is a special appeal arising out of the order dated 14.12.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶13

Brief facts of the matter are that the petitioner was appointed as Data Entry Operator on work charge basis with the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board. He had worked on the said post from 01.02.1990 to 28.11.1990 and his services were verbally terminated on 28.11.1990. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court and after issuance of the notice on the same, his services were terminated by a written order dated 29.05.1993.

¶14

Aggrieved by the termination, the employee raised his claim before the Labour Court and the same was allowed vide award

¶15

(2 of 5)

¶16

[SAW-688/2020]

¶17

dated 27.02.1999. The Labour Court directed the employee to be reinstated with continuity of service and 50% of the back wages. In pursuance to the Award of the Labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated and he joined his services on 09.04.1999.

¶18

Writ petition of the department against the Award of the Labour Court was dismissed & Special Appeal thereupon was also dismissed.

¶19

Soon after the reinstatement, the employee continuously submitted representations to the employer for granting regular pay scale to him and ultimately vide order dated 25.02.2005, his services were regularised and he was granted regular pay scale.

¶20

The controversy of the present petition arose when after almost a period of ten years, vide letter dated 02.05.2014 of the Department, the employee was directed to fill up form S-1 for membership of the New Contributory Pension Scheme, 2004 stating him to be falling under the New Pension Scheme. It was also informed vide letter dated 08.10.2014 that till S-1 form is not filled by the employee, his salary would not be released. Aggrieved against the same, the employee preferred a writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge, after considering Rule 10 and 11 of the Employees Pension Regulation, (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations of 1992), which governed the employees of the respondent-Department and after considering letter dated 20.09.2001 of the department observed that the New Pension Scheme would not be applicable to the petitioner and he would be entitled to receive pension in terms of the Pension Scheme,1993. The writ petition of the petitioner was thus allowed.

¶21

(3 of 5)

¶22

[SAW-688/2020]

¶23

Against the said order, present special appeal has been preferred by the respondent-Department with the averments that as the petitioner was regularised on 25.02.2005, in terms of Rule 10 of the Regulations of 1992, he would be governed by the new pension scheme of the year 2004 and not the old pension scheme.

¶24

Heard the parties and perused the record.

¶25

We are of the opinion that the present special appeal of the appellant deserves to be dismissed for the following reasons:-

¶26

Firstly, the award of the Labour Court vide which it was directed that the services of the petitioner would be deemed to be continuous from the date of his initial appointment having become final, the same cannot be re-appreciated in the present appeal. Meaning thereby the date of the initial appointment of the petitioner i.e. 21.03.1990 would be treated to be his actual date of appointment for all purposes.

¶27

Secondly, the employer did not ask the petitioner to contribute to new pension scheme for nearly 10 years after passing the order for his regularization. Thus, according to the employer also, the petitioner was covered by the old pension scheme.

¶28

Thirdly, a perusal of the New Contributory Pension Scheme, 2004 itself makes it clear that the same was applicable only for those Board employees who were appointed in the services of the Board on or after 01.01.2004. The introductory lines of this new pension scheme reads as under:-

¶29

“In compliance with the Board decision, contributory pension scheme is introduced for those Board employees who are appointed in services of the Board on or after 01.01.2004.”

¶30

(4 of 5)

¶31

[SAW-688/2020]

¶32

Therefore it is crystal clear that the new pension scheme was introduced to be applied only on those employees who were appointed on or after 01.01.2004. By all means, the date of appointment of the petitioner was 31.03.1990, he should have been regularized after 10 years of such date and therefore the new pension scheme would even otherwise be not applicable on him.

¶33

Fourthly and lastly, the circular dated 08.09.1987 of the Department available on record shows that it was the specific direction of the department that all the employees who had completed 10 years of service should be declared permanent. The circular makes it clear that the petitioner though regularized in the year 2005, was entitled to be made permanent in the year 2000 itself, after completion of his 10 years of service. Therefore too, the petitioner could not be held to be governed by the new pension scheme in terms of Rule 10 and 11 of the Regulations 1992. As observed and held by the learned Single Judge too, the petitioner was qualified for the pension in terms of the scheme prevailing at the relevant time and not the new pension scheme.

¶34

Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No(s).43874388/2019, Factory Manager Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. Laxman decided on 25.04.2019 . That was a matter wherein the petitioner filed a representation for change in his date of birth after his retirement. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the employee could not have slept over his right for a period of 10 years and therefore, declined to grant any relief to him.

¶35

Counsel for the appellant also relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs.

¶36

(5 of 5)

¶37

[SAW-688/2020]

¶38

Balkaran Singh in Civil Appeal Nos.5847, 5853 and 5854 of 2005 decided on 18.10.2006. The ratio as laid down in the said judgment would also not apply to the present matter as the same was a matter where a suit for declaration was filed after a period of 12 years of the order fixing the revised pay scale of the employee. By no stretch, the aforementioned judgments can be said to be applicable to the present matter where the employee approached this Court soon after the letter dated 02.05.2014 was served upon him.

¶39

In the present matter, on the contrary, the delay if any, would be attributable to the department, who after regularisation of the employee in the year 2005, called upon him to fill up the form S-1 in the year 2014 after a lapse of 10 years.

¶40

In view of these observations, we do not find any ground for interference in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present appeal stand dismissed.

¶41

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶42

(AKIL KURESHI),CJ

¶43

KAMLESH KUMAR/N.GANDHI/Aks/S-93

Rajasthan Housing Board v. Sunil Chaturvedi S/O Shri Ramesh Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajasthan Housing Board v. Sunil Chaturvedi S/O Shri Ramesh Chand

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

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs Shri Ashok Agarwal HUF

Bubugao Communication Private Limited Vs Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax

Yogesh Kumar Tailor (Advocate)S/O Late. Shri Kamal Kumar Tailor Vs Managing Director,Jaipur Vidhut Vitran Nigam Limited

Santoshi Meena Son of Shri Lajja Ram Meena Vs Rajasthan University of Health Science

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

State of Rajasthan Vs Lok Manya Tilak College