Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/43/2022 on 21 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
SRI JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
AND
SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE, J.
21ST JULY, 2022
WRIT-PETITION (S/B) No.43 OF 2022
Between:
Dr. Aditya Narayan Pandey and Others .......Petitioners
and
State of Uttarakhand and Others ....Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners : Ms. Shaifali Singh, learned counsel.
Counsel for the State : Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate
General.
Counsel for respondent no.3 : Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned counsel holding
brief of Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel.
JUDGMENT : (per Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
The petitioners have preferred this petition to seek
a direction to the respondents to give them the benefit of
Old Pension Scheme along with all other applicable benefits.
The petitioners submitted their applications in response to
the advertisement issued on 16.03.2005 by the Secretary,
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission for the post of
Professors, Lecturers and Readers.
2. The petitioners state that the selection process was
initiated vide a notification dated 19.10.2007 and they were
offered appointment on different dates between 17.07.2008
and 22.01.2009. The petitioners further state that on
25.10.2005 the Government of Uttarakhand introduced
'defined contribution pension scheme' i.e. New Pension
Scheme. This was contributory pension scheme made
applicable from 01.10.2005.
3. The petitioners, at the relevant point of time, did
not raise any grievance and continued to serve and only
now, in the year 2022, the present petition has been
preferred by them that they are entitled to be covered by
the Old Pension Scheme which was prevalent before
01.10.2005. In support of their submission they seek to
place reliance on an order passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in Special Appeal No.330 of 2013 and Special
Appeal No.523 of 2013 on 26.06.2014. In that case, the
petitioners applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in
Government Primary Schools and were interviewed on
28.09.2005 and were selected vide order dated 29.09.2005.
In that light, the Special Appeal was allowed by observing as
follows:-
"Undisputedly, when petitioners applied for
the post, old pension scheme was in existence,
therefore, petitioners had every reasonable
expectation that they would be governed by the
service conditions prevailing on the date posts were
advertised and recruitment process was
commenced. In our considered view, service
conditions, prevailing on the date recruitment
process commenced, cannot be permitted to be
altered in disadvantage of the recruitees. Moreover,
in our considered opinion, Government Order dated
25.10.2005 is prospective in nature and cannot be
made applicable retrospectively for the persons
who had applied for the post prior to 25.10.2005.
Therefore, we do not find any reason to take
contrary view to the view taken by the learned
Single Judge."
4. We may, firstly, observe that on facts the present
case is clearly distinguishable from the case considered by
the Division Bench while dealing with Special Appeal No.330
of 2013 and Special Appeal No.523 of 2013. As noticed
above, the selection process in relation to the petitioners
was initiated much after the discontinuation of the Old
Pension Scheme on 30.09.2005. Even the appointments of
the petitioners was made much later in the years 2008 and
2009. Even otherwise, it appears that the petitions are
debarred by delay and latches.
5. We may also observe that we have strong
reservation about the correctness of the principle invoked by
the Court while dealing with Special Appeal No.330 of 2013
and Special Appeal No.523 of 2013. However, we have been
informed that the said decision has been stayed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the special leave petition pending
before it, and an interim order has been passed in favour of
the State Government permitting the State to make the
necessary deductions.
6. For this reason, we are refraining from referring
the matter to a larger Bench of this Court at this stage.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, we find absolutely no
merits in this petition and the same is, accordingly,
dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
R.C. KHULBE, J.
Dt: 21st July, 2022
BS/SS
