Delhi High Court
Niraj Kumar Singh And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 13 December, 2019
$~65
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13129/2019
NIRAJ KUMAR SINGH AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Akshay Amrit Anshu, Advocate
with Ms. Bakshi Vinita and Mr.
Shubham Saurav, Advocates
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
ORDER
% 13.12.2019
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:
1. Notice. Mr. Akshay Amrit Anshu, learned counsel accepts notice on
behalf of the Respondents.
2. Since the matter at hand is covered by an order dated 9th April, 2019 of
this Court in W.P.(C) 1358/2017 (Shyam Kumar Choudhary v. Union of
India), which concerned personnel of the Central Reserve Police Force
(„CRPF‟), and which orders were affirmed by the Supreme Court by
dismissal of SLP.(C) 31539/2019 (Union of India & Ors v. Shyam Kumar
Choudhary) on 27th November, 2019, the Court proceeds to dispose of the
writ petition at this stage itself.
3. The 17 Petitioners here applied for the post of Sub-Inspector („SI‟) in the
Central Police Organisations pursuant to an advertisement dated 21st June,
2003. Upon successfully appearing in the written examination, they
appeared for the Physical Efficiency Test („PET‟) in November 2003, which
they passed. They were then called for a medical examination in January-
February, 2004 and were declared fit. The final result of the examinations
was declared in May, 2004. The Petitioners were issued offer of
appointment on 2nd June 2005 and on accepting the same the appointment
letter was issued on 14th July 2005 for joining the Sashastra Seema Bal
(SSB).
4. The Petitioners state that they were under an impression that they will be
covered under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) under CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972 as the recruitment process had been initiated prior to the Notification
dated 22nd December 2003 which was implemented with effect from 1st
January 2004. However, the Respondents treated them as part of the new
contributory pension scheme as their appointment had been issued after 1st
January 2004. After the Petitioners‟ representation dated 8th September 2017
was rejected by the Respondents by an order dated 25 th January 2018, the
present petition has been filed.
5. The short question that arises in this petition is whether the Petitioners are
covered by the OPS which was replaced by the new Contributory Pension
Scheme, which came into effect from 1st January, 2004?
6. It has been consistently held by this Court in a series of orders that those
who had participated in the examination of 2003 would be covered by the
OPS, notwithstanding that they had been offered letters of appointment only
after 1st January, 2004. Among the several orders of this Court is an order
dated 2nd November 2012 in W.P. (C) 3827 of 2012 (Naveen Kumar Jha v.
Union of India) where in the context of a delay in the issuance of the letter
of appointment of a Sub-Inspector (SI) of the Central Reserve Police Force
(CRPF), beyond 1st January 2004, on account of the delay in the authorities
having him examined by a Review Medical Board, it was held that the
Petitioner would be covered by the OPS.
7. By a subsequent order dated12th February, 2015 in W.P.(C) 3834/2013
(Parmanand Yadav v. Union of India) in the context of SIs of the Border
Security Force (BSF) whose letters of appointment were delayed beyond 1 st
January 2004, it was held that they too would be covered by the OPS. The
BSF accepted this and other judgments that followed and its Director
General (DG) issued an order dated 13th January 2016 in which inter alia it
was stated:
"therefore, in respectful compliance of order dated 12.02.2015,
passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, approval of Competent
Authority i.e. Ministry of Home Affairs is hereby conveyed to
convert the petitioners and other similarly situated SI/DE
selected through CPOs Exam-2002 (as per list enclosed at
Appendix A) as members of the old pension scheme, which was
in vogue till 31/12/2003 and the NPS corpus which were earlier
subscribed should be transferred to the GPF accounts of each
individual, subject to the condition that they will not be entitled
for any back wages or seniority etc."
8. Subsequently, after a judgment dated 27th March 2017 of this Court in the
case of Inspectors of the BSF in W.P. (C) 2810 of 2016 (Inspector Rajendra
Singh v. Union of India), the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued an
Office Memorandum (OM) dated 13th April 2018, accepting the said
judgment for implementation and inter alia directing as under:
"5. Now, Competent authority desires that all other CAPFs
(except BSF) may also check their record and if any similar
case is found they may examine & take appropriate action on
the similar lines by taking reliance of BSF case, to avoid similar
litigation in future."
9. Another order dated 16th October 2018 was issued by the BSF
implementing the decisions of this Court extending the benefit of the OPS in
the case of Head Constable (Radio Operators) who had been selected prior
to 1st January 2004 but issued appointment letters thereafter.
10. This Court, in the context of certain Constables of BSF, by a judgment
dated 12th February, 2019 in W.P. (C) 6680 of 2017 (Tanaka Ram v. Union
of India) allowed the prayers of those Petitioners and held that they should
be covered by the OPS. The order of this Court in Tanaka Ram (supra) was
affirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissal of SLP (CC) Diary No.
25228/2019 (Union of India v. Tanaka Ram) on 2nd September 2019.
11. In W.P. (C) 1358/2017 (Shyam Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India),
relief similar to the one sought in the present case was being claimed by
certain Assistant Commandants in the CRPF, who had successfully cleared
the examinations of 2003. They were, however, offered letters of
appointment after January, 2004. By an order dated 9 th April, 2019, their
petition was allowed by this Court. That order has been affirmed by the
Supreme Court inasmuch as SLP (C) 31539/2019 filed by Union of India
has been dismissed by an order dated 27th November, 2019.
12. In that view of the matter, the Court finds no reason to treat the present
Petitioners who belong to the SSB, another CAPF, different from their
counterparts in the CRPF and BSF.
13. The Court accordingly allows the present petition and quashes the order
dated 25th January, 2018 passed by the Respondents by which the
Petitioners‟ representation dated 8th September 2017, requesting that the
OPS be extended to them, was rejected. A direction is issued to the
Respondents to extend the benefit of the OPS to each of the Petitioners in
terms of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, by issuing appropriate orders within a
period of 12 weeks from today.
CM APPL. 53516/2019 (exemptions)
14. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
TALWANT SINGH, J.
DECEMBER 13, 2019
rr
