Allahabad High Court
Ajay Kumar Singh And 108 Others vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 22 January, 2021
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 239 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh And 108 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for parties.
This petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) issue a writ of mandamus or order/direction of suitable nature commanding the Respondent Authorities to grant the petitioners to benefit of old pension scheme and other consequential benefits thereof;
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or order/direction of suitable nature commanding the Respondent Authorities to allot GPF A/c No. to each of the petitioners within a stipulated time period so that monthly deductions from their respective salaries as a contribution can be made in their respective GPF A/c;
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or order/direction of suitable nature directing/commanding the competent authorities not to treat the petitioners as governed by newly defined contributory pension scheme enforced w.e.f. 01.04.2005;
(iv) issue an appropriate order or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;"
The contention of the petitioners is that they would be entitled to benefits of the Old Pension Scheme in light of the fact that they had been selected prior to 01 April 2005 when the New Pension Scheme came into operation. According to the petitioners, the delay in issuance of appointment orders and the actual joining of the petitioners was solely attributable to the inaction of the respondents and consequently the petitioners cannot be denied the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme.
Dealing with an identical contention, 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] when it observed: -
"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
Vivek Kr.
