Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1957 (RAJ)

Madusudan v. State of Rajasthan

2013-11-08

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this writ petition, while praying for following reliefs: "(i) the respondents be directed to grant the benefits of old pension scheme to the petitioner instead of the new pension scheme with all consequential benefits and revision of pay scale etc. (ii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case may be passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 15.08.1998 issued by the respondent No.3, applied for appointment on the post of Physical Teacher Gr.III. When the respondents denied bonus marks to the petitioner for possessing National Sports Certificate, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing SBCWP No.2809/2002, which came to be allowed by this Court on 03.11.2004, while directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner after adding 15 marks and after doing so, if it is found that any person, standing lower in merit than the petitioner, has been offered appointment, then the case of the petitioner shall also be considered for appointment from the date, the person junior to the petitioner has been offered appointment. It was also directed by this Court that if the appointment has been provided to the petitioner, he will not be entitled for emoluments except the benefit of seniority. The order dated 03.11.2004 passed in SBCWP No.2809/2002 was challenged by the respondents before the Division Bench of this Court, however, no relief was granted to the respondents and ultimately, in compliance of the order dated 03.11.2004 passed by this Court in SBCWP No.2809/2002 preferred by the petitioner, the respondents accorded appointment to the petitioner on the post of Physical Teacher Gr.III vide order dated 14.07.2005 and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner joined his duties. 3. The petitioner filed a representation before the respondent No.3, while claiming that his date of birth has wrongly been recorded in the service book and has also claimed that he is entitled to get the benefit of old pension scheme in place of new pension scheme. When the said representation of the petitioner was not decided, then he moved another representation on 13.10.2008. When the said representation of the petitioner was not decided, then he moved another representation on 13.10.2008. In response to the representation dated 13.10.2008, the respondents issued an order dated 17.12.2008 and corrected the date of birth of the petitioner but did not grant the benefit of the old pension scheme to the petitioner. The petitioner has sent various reminders to the respondents but the respondents have not granted the benefit of old pension scheme to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 4. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition, in which it is contended that since the petitioner was accorded appointment in the year 2005 when the new pension scheme came into force, he is not entitled to get the benefit of old pension scheme. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the petitioner was appointed in pursuance of the Court's directions against the vacancy pertaining to the year 1998-1999 and was granted seniority from the year 1998-1999, the respondents cannot deny the benefit of old pension scheme to the petitioner on the ground that he was appointed in the year 2005 and, therefore, he is entitled to be fixed in the new pension scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the appointment was granted to the petitioner way back in the year 1998 and, therefore, he is entitled to get the benefit of old pension scheme. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one Shri Jitendra Singh was also appointed in pursuance of the directions given by this Court on the post of Physical Teacher Gr.III against the vacancy pertaining to the year 1998-1999 and was granted the benefit of the old pension scheme and the case of the petitioner is identical to that of Shri Jitendra Singh but the respondents are not granting the similar benefits to the petitioner, therefore, the action of the respondents is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed for grant of relief to the petitioner as prayed in the writ petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed for grant of relief to the petitioner as prayed in the writ petition. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the appointment was granted to the petitioner in the year 2005 when the new pension scheme came into force and, therefore, he is entitled to get the benefit under the new pension scheme and not under the old pension scheme. 7. So far contention of the petitioner that similarly situated person - Shri Jitendra Singh was granted the benefit of old pension scheme is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that the respondents have not replied to the said contention of the petitioner in the reply and not disputed that Shri Jitendra Singh was granted the benefit of old pension scheme. 8. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was accorded appointment against the vacancy pertaining to the year 1998- 1999 and was also granted seniority as well as other benefits from the year 1998-1999. It is also not in dispute that similarly situated person - Shri Jitendra Singh was granted the benefit of old pension scheme, however, the petitioner has not been granted the said benefits only for the reason that the appointment was granted to him in the year 2005. When the petitioner was accorded appointment against the vacancy in the year 1998-1999 and was also assigned seniority from the year 1998-1999, the action of the respondents in denying the benefits of the old pension scheme to the petitioner applicable is not tenable. It is also noticed that when the similarly situated person was granted the said benefit, though appointed after the appointment of the petitioner, the respondents are not justifying in denying the said benefit to the petitioner. 10. In view of the above discussions, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant the benefit of the petitioner as per old pension scheme with all consequential benefits and revision of pay scale etc. The said exercise shall be done within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.Petition Allowed. *******