Allahabad High Court
Satyendra Kumar Bharti And ... vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 22 January, 2021
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13843 of 2020
Petitioner :- Satyendra Kumar Bharti And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bipin Bihari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
None has appeared for the petitioners even in the revised call. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
This petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to exempt the petitioners from the notification dated 28-03-2005 and 7-4-2005 and to treat the petitioners under old pension scheme.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to allot the G.P.F. Account number to the petitioners and to transfer the amount which has been deducted under the N.P.S. to their accounts of G.P.F.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.4 to decide the representation of petitioners in the light of judgment and orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand as well as this Hon'ble High Court (Annexure 8 and 9 to the writ petition.)"
The prayers are addressed in the backdrop of the fact that although the petitioners were selected on 31 July 2003 they were ultimately accorded appointment only on 08 June 2005. Undisputedly in the meanwhile, the New Pension Scheme came to be promulgated and came into effect from 01 April 2005. It is in that backdrop that it is contended that since the joining of the petitioners was delayed on account of the inaction on the part of the respondents, they cannot be denied the benefits of coverage under the Old Pension Scheme.
Dealing with an identical question, this Court in Ravi Raj And Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others [2020 (3) ADJ 408], held thus:-
"The Court additionally notes that the provisions of Rule 2(3) of the 1961 Rules are not assailed. The judgment therefore must necessarily proceed on the basis of that it is that provision alone which governs and must dictate the answer to the question posited. That Rule, as noted above, clearly refers to entry into service as being the determinative factor. None of the petitioners here are shown to have entered into service prior to 01 April 2005. The mere fact that the process of recruitment was initiated prior thereto can be of no assistance to their cause of being governed by the Old Pension Scheme.
The Court also bears in mind the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Roop Chandra where it was held that a stipulation contained in an appointment order cannot be assailed or questioned after its acceptance. As noticed in the earlier part of this judgment the appointment letter of the petitioners had clearly stipulated that their appointment was to come into force upon their joining. It did not stipulate the appointment coming into effect from some retroactive date. That prescription in the order of appointment was duly accepted without demur or protest. It is not permissible for the petitioners to now and at this point of time to renege from that concession.
..."
A similar view has been expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Janardan Rai and other Vs. State of U.P. and other [2018 SCC OnLine All 3419] where it was held as follows:-
"15. In the present case the appellants-petitioners acquired the eligibility after they completed the Special B.T.C. Course and thereafter they were appointed some time in November 2005. The New Pension Scheme and the amended provisions of the G.P.F. (Uttar Pradesh) Rules 2005, came into force w.e.f. 07.04.2005. Therefore, as on the date of appointment of the appellants-petitioners as Assistant Teacher in December 2005, Old Pension Scheme or the unamended G.P.F. Rules were not in existence rather the New Pension Scheme and the amended G.P.F. Rules were applicable. Therefore, the appellants-petitioners are not entitled for the benefit of Old Pension Scheme or the unamended provisions of G.P.F. Rules. "
In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds no justification to issue the writs as prayed for.
The petition is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 22.1.2021
faraz
