Delhi High Court
Dr. Rehan Ahmad Khan vs Jamia Milia Islamia Central ... on 3 March, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.1964/2015
% 3rd March, 2015
DR. REHAN AHMAD KHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Gaur, Adv.
versus
JAMIA MILIA ISLAMIA CENTRAL UNIVERSITY & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manpreet Kaur, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Arjun Karkaoli, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner, whose technical resignation on 27.5.2011 was
accepted by the respondent no.1, seeks the relief that he should be granted
pension under the Old Pension Scheme instead of the New Pension Scheme.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed
originally with the respondent no.1/Jamia Milia Islamia Central University
vide appointment letter dated 16.7.2002 only on a purely temporary
WP(C) 1964/2015 Page 1 of 3
appointment against the leave vacancy of one Dr. Shamshad Ahmad
Naginvi. Petitioner after serving in the temporary position, was
subsequently appointed on probation w.e.f 27.10.2005 and thereafter
confirmed to his post w.e.f 27.10.2006.
3. Admittedly, when the petitioner was appointed on probation in
2005 and then confirmed in 2006, it was the New Pension Scheme which
was prevalent and not the Old Pension Scheme. New Pension Scheme
became applicable w.e.f 1.1.2004 and all employees who were appointed
after 1.1.2004 were to be governed by the New Pension Scheme.
4. The appointment of the petitioner on a purely temporary basis
in 2002, does not give any benefits except in terms of the temporary
appointment letter and any service benefit which the petitioner claims is only
such which can only be available to him after he was regularly appointed to
the post and when the petitioner was confirmed as a lecturer w.e.f
27.10.2006 the Old Pension Scheme was no longer extant.
5. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner placing reliance
upon para 13 of the temporary appointment letter dated 16.7.2002 that the
petitioner will be governed by GPF-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme is
misplaced because this clause has to be read alongwith the other clauses of
WP(C) 1964/2015 Page 2 of 3
this appointment letter and para 1 of which makes it clear that the
appointment is purely on temporary basis. Even the earlier part of the letter
makes it clear that petitioner was appointed against the leave vacancy of Dr.
Shamshad Ahmad Naginvi. Since it is an undisputed position on record that
it is not as if the petitioner was confirmed on the post to which he was
appointed vide letter dated 16.7.2002, and therefore, petitioner's
appointment on 16.7.2002 not being on a regular basis with the respondent
no.1-University, the service benefits of regular appointment will only flow
to the petitioner after his confirmation in 2006, and when admittedly not the
old but the New Pension Scheme was applicable as from 1.1.2004.
6. Dismissed.
MARCH 03, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
