AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman:
The applicant responded to an advertisement issued in the month of May 2002 by the respondents for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. There was some delay in finalization of appointments, and it was only on 03.04.2006, that the applicant joined the service. He contends that the respondents granted the benefit of old pension scheme to the other batch-mates.
Series of OAs were filed between 2011 and 2013. The Tribunal disposed of the OAs directing that the persons appointed against any post advertised before 01.01.2004 are given the benefit of old pension scheme. The applicants made a representation on 02.11.2020 claiming the benefits of extension of old pension scheme. Various other grounds are also urged.
We heard Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, leaned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.S. Reen, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Ms. Anupama Bansal, learned counsel for respondent No.2 at the stage of admission itself.
The applicant claims to have been appointed against the post that was advertised much before 01.01.2004. It is also stated that that several persons who were appointed through the same advertisement were extended the benefit of old pension scheme. The question as to whether the applicant deserves to be extended the same treatment needs to be examined by the respondents. The representation submitted by the applicant cannot be kept pending indefinitely.
We, therefore, dispose of the OA directing the respondents to pass orders on the representation of the applicant dated 02.11.2020, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The OA is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.