Allahabad High Court
Parneet And 13 Others vs State Of U.P. And 9 Others on 9 July, 2021
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4191 of 2021
Petitioner :- Parneet And 13 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shantanu Khare,Shri Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
This case is taken up through Video Conferencing.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shantanu Khare, learned counsel for petitioners and learned standing counsel.
Petitioners have approached this Court claiming for a mandamus commanding the respondents to treat them as covered by old pension scheme and to grant them all the benefits under the said old pension scheme.
In State of U.P., the old pension scheme was withdrawn and a new contributory pension scheme was enforced with effect from 1.4.2005. petitioners claim that they were selected after following due process and appointed on Class-IV post by appointment orders dated 8.2.2005. They were required to submit their joining within 15 days. The State Government issued an order dated 9.2.2005 restraining all further proceedings in pursuance of appointments. Therefore, the petitioners could not join on Class-IV post. By an order dated 28.11.2005, the State Government came to the conclusion that there was nothing wrong in selection process of the petitioners and therefore, directions were issued to ensure their joining. In pursuance to the order dated 2.11.2005, the petitioners joined and are continuously working since then on the Class-IV post. In view of aforesaid facts, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that though the petitioners were selected and issued appointment letters in February, 2005, prior to the cut off date of 1.4.2005 of new pension scheme, in the special circumstances, they were not permitted to join and their joining took place after new pension scheme had come into force.
Learned counsel for petitioners states that in these circumstances, the petitioners are entitled for benefit of old pension scheme and similar controversy came before this Court in the case of Mahesh Narayan and others. Vs. State of U.P. and others, [2020 (3) ESC 922 (All)]. The said judgment in Mahesh Narayan's case (supra) was challenged by the State before thsi Court in Special Appeal Defective No.117 of 2021 which was also dismissed by the order dated 19.2.2021 on merit and the order of learned Single Judge was affirmed. The learned Single Judge in the case of Mahesh Narayan (supra) held that where there is fault on the part of appointing authority in causing delay in completing the appointment procedure, the petitioner cannot be put to any type of disadvantage.
From the facts narrated above, it is clear that even in the present case, the appointment was made in the month of February, 2005 and it was the State Government which delayed the process of joining as it wanted to inquire into the process of selection, in which it did not find any defect and, therefore, permitted joining in the month of November,2005. Therefore, the delay was caused in the special circumstances by the appointment authority and not by the petitioners and, therefore, they cannot be put to any disadvantage.
in view thereof, a mandamus is issued to respondents to include the name of petitioners also in the old pension scheme and grant them all benefits under the old pension scheme.
With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 9.7.2021
Rajneesh JR-PS)
(Vivek Chaudhary, J.)
