Kiran Pal Singh vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief(s):

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) issued the Advertisement No.01/2002 for selection and appointment for various posts, including the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary). The applicant applied for the post against the Ex-Servicemen category and appeared in the written examination held on 08.09.2002. The DSSSB - respondent No.4 declared the result and issued select list. However, the result of the applicant was not declared along with other candidates in 2003. He came to know that other candidates, whose results were declared by the respondents, have joined in the year 2003 itself. On query from respondent No.4 about delay in declaration of his result, he was assured that no prejudice would be caused to him on account of delay and that his result could not be declared due to pendency of CWP No.6456/2003 & CM No. 11283/2003 (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Foundation (Regd.) & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.). Finally, on disposal of the said cases, the result of applicant was declared and he was issued offer of appointment on 10.09.2004. He joined as Assistant Teacher (Primary) on 28.01.2005.

Vide order dated 19.07.2006, the Government of NCT of Delhi adopted the New Pension Scheme dated 22.12.2003 framed by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance and made applicable to the employees of Government of NCT of Delhi retrospectively for those, who entered the service on or after 01.01.2004. The employees, who joined Government of NCT of Delhi on or after 01.01.2004, were not allowed to be governed by the Old Pension Scheme under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

The grievance of the applicant is that his selection was against the vacancies notified in the year 2002 and, hence, he should be given the benefit of Old Pension Scheme. It is also contended that identically placed persons had approached this Tribunal, wherein their cases were allowed and the respondents were directed to grant the benefits of Old Pension Scheme to those persons.

Learned counsel for applicant is seeking extension of benefit of judgment passed by the Tribunal in OA Nos. 183/2009, 3719/2009 and 2045/2010, wherein the respondents were directed to fix their seniority with effect from the dates of their batch-mates came to be appointed with benefits of pay fixation and Old Pension Scheme. The learned counsel relied on the judgments in various other OA Nos.591/2016 and 4297/2017, being similarly situated. He has also relied on the order of this Tribunal dated 19.09.2014 passed in OA No.3472/2013, which was upheld by Hon‟ble High Court vide judgment dated 13.09.2018 as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.07.2019, by granting the benefit of Old Pension Scheme as well as pay fixation as granted to applicants therein. The respondents have also implemented the aforesaid order dated 19.09.2014, vide their order dated 17.11.2020.

The applicant submitted that despite being similarly situated with the applicants in OA Nos. 183/2009, 3719/2009, 2045/2010, 3472/2013 and 4297/2017, he has been discriminated and denied the legitimate rights accruing therefrom. It is further stated that despite being identically placed, he is compelled to approach this Tribunal for the same benefits as granted to similarly placed persons.

Learned counsel for the applicant also drawn our attention to the Department of Pension and PW‟s Office Memorandum No.57/04/2019-P&PW(B) dated 17.02.2020 on the subject “Coverage under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, in place of National Pension System, of those Central Government employees whose selection for appointment was finalized before 01.01.2004 but who joined Government service on or after 01.01.2004”, particularly to para 4 of the said OM, which reads as under:

Today, we heard Mr. M K Bhardwaj, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. H.A. Khan, learned counsel for respondents, at the stage of admission.

In Inder Pal Yadav Vs. Union of India, 1985 (3) SCR 837, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that those, who do not come to the Court, need not be at a disadvantage to those, who rushed to the Courts and if they are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment, if not by anyone else at the hands of this Court. In State of Karnataka and Others Vs. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747, it was held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently [K.I. Shephard Vs. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 686; and K.T. Verappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 2006 (9) SCC 406)].

In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, the O.A. is disposed of and the respondents are directed to verify as to whether the applicant is similarly situated to the applicants in OA Nos. 591/2016, 4297/2017 and 3472/2013 (supra), in terms of Department of Pension and PW‟s Office Memorandum No.57/04/2019-P&PW(B) dated 17.02.2020; and if it is found that the applicant is similarly situated, consider his case for fixation of pay in the Old Pension Scheme in terms of the directions contained in the aforesaid O.As.. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the applicant. There shall be no order as to costs.