AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Member (J):
The applicants by filing the instant OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, are seeking the following reliefs:-
“i.Direct the respondents to grant the benefit of Old Pension Scheme to the applicants in connection with their appointment as Lab Assistant (now JMLT) with the respondents qua Post-Codes 58/99 and 197/99 and further fix their pay at par with candidates who joined the post in the year, 2003 qua the said Post-Codes and release the arrears thereof, granting them notional seniority and other consequential benefits;”
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the process for selection for the posts of Lab Assistant has been started much before their actual selection, i.e., 1.1.2004 and some of the candidates were offered appointments before 1.1.2004 and they have joined somewhere in 2005 after culmination of their litigation in Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 13.5.2005. In the meanwhile, some notification was issued by the Government on 17.2.2000 – “Some of the candidates selected through a common selection process were issued offers of appointments and were also appointed before 1.1.2004 whereas the offers of appointments to other selected candidates were issued on or after 1.1.2004 due to administrative reasons/constrains including pendency of Court/CAT case” clarifying certain cases which are covered under the Old Pension Scheme. The applicants are claiming that their cases are also covered by the aforesaid clarification.
Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the applicants have made representations on 27.5.2020 onwards. Learned counsel for the applicants also drawn our attention to the matter decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Niraj Kumar Singh and others vs. Union of India and others (W.P.(C) No.13129/2019) wherein it has been held as under:-
“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.”
Similar view was taken in W.P. (C) No.8208/2020 by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 15.1.2021
Ms. Esha Mazumdar, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondents on advance information, accepts notice and opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants.
However, after hearing both sides, we direct that respondents shall dispose of the aforesaid representations of the applicants within a period of four months by passing a reasoned and speaking order and communicate their decision to the applicants. If the applicants are not satisfied with the decision of the respondents, they may take legal recourse in accordance with law, if so advised.
It is made clear that while disposing of this OA, this Tribunal has not gone into the merit of the claim of the applicants.
With the above observations, the present OA is disposed of.
8 7. Pending MA also stands disposed of accordingly.