Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1248 (JHR)

Jitendra Kumar Singh v. Union of India

2013-11-19

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction upon the respondents for grant of benefit under “Old Pension Scheme”. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to the advertisement issued in the newspaper on 29.08.2003, petitioner was appointed on 10.01.2004. A New Pension Scheme was notified thereafter and since the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme which was prevalent at the time when the petitioner was appointed, was not extended to the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed stating as under, 12. “That with regard to the statement made in paragraph-1 (a) of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the answering respondents submit that it is denied. Border Security Force is a armed force of union under Ministry of Home Affairs and the Rules & Regulations are subject to change from time to time. As per Ministry of Home Affairs OM. No. 1 (13) EV /2001 dated 15th Mar 2004, a new pension scheme has been introduced to the new entrants in Central government from Jan, 2004 as NEW RESTRUCTURED DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PENSION SYSTEM. 13. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph-1 (b) of the writ petition the answering respondents submit that the petitioners enrolled in BSF on 10.01.2004 (i.e Jan, 2004). Hence, they are only entitled to the new pension scheme, which was introduced by the Ministry of Home Affairs. 14. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph-2(a) of the writ petition the answering respondents submit that it is denied. As per provisions of MHA, the petitioners are entitled to the new pension scheme only.” 5. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the Rules which were prevalent at the time when the petitioner was appointed cannot be changed to detriment of the employee and since the New Pension Scheme was notified after the petitioner was appointed, the petitioner is entitled for grant of benefit under the Old Pension Scheme. 6. Per-contra the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that, the applicability of the New Pension Scheme has been clarified by Office Memorandum dated 15.03.2004. It has been clarified that the New Pension Scheme would be applicable to all new entrants in the Central Government who were appointed on or after 01.01.2004. 6. Per-contra the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that, the applicability of the New Pension Scheme has been clarified by Office Memorandum dated 15.03.2004. It has been clarified that the New Pension Scheme would be applicable to all new entrants in the Central Government who were appointed on or after 01.01.2004. He has further submitted that in view of the aforesaid and the fact that the New Pension Scheme has worked successfully, the claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained by this Court. 7. In view of the Office Memorandum dated 15.03.2004 wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the New Pension Scheme has been made applicable to all the new entrants and it has not been denied that the Border Security Force also would come under the Central Government, I am not inclined to entertain this petition and therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.