Court’s Decision
The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the respondent authorities to extend pensionary benefits under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS). The Court held that the petitioner’s initial appointment date should be considered for determining pension eligibility, rather than the date of his later regularization. It emphasized that an undertaking signed by the petitioner, agreeing to be governed by the New Pension Scheme (NPS), does not override his legal entitlement.
Facts
- The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on December 4, 1999, by the competent authority.
- He was allowed to draw a regular salary and completed his Junior Basic Training Course in 2006 through a government-sponsored deputation.
- He was terminated on January 30, 2009, along with several other teachers, allegedly due to an irregular appointment process.
- The petitioner challenged his termination in the High Court, which set aside the termination order, directing authorities to reinstate him.
- The respondents appealed, and the Division Bench ruled that his service should be regularized if he had been receiving a regular salary up to October 17, 2006.
- Following the Court’s directive, the petitioner was reinstated on September 22, 2015, but was again regularized on September 30, 2022, with a condition that he would be covered under the New Pension Scheme (NPS).
- The petitioner filed this case, arguing that he should be covered under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) since he was initially appointed before the introduction of the NPS.
Issues Before the Court
- Should the petitioner be entitled to pension benefits under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS)?
- Should his service from his initial appointment be considered for pensionary benefits?
- Is the undertaking signed by the petitioner agreeing to be covered under the NPS legally binding?
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner claimed that since his appointment date was in 1999, he should be governed by the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), which was applicable before February 1, 2005.
- He argued that his termination was found illegal, and since his reinstatement was directed by the Court, his service should be counted from the initial appointment date (1999).
- He had been allotted a GPF number in 2001, which was a feature of the OPS, further proving that he was covered under the Old Pension Scheme.
- The petitioner asserted that the undertaking he signed for being governed under the New Pension Scheme (NPS) was given under duress and should not affect his rights under the OPS.
- He relied on judicial precedents where employees in similar situations were granted OPS benefits.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The respondents claimed that the petitioner’s initial appointment was irregular, as it was made without advertisement, approval, or proper selection procedures.
- They argued that his reinstatement was with prospective effect, meaning that he was treated as a newly regularized employee in 2022, making him ineligible for the Old Pension Scheme.
- The government’s policy dictated that employees regularized after 2005 must be covered under the New Pension Scheme (NPS).
- They also emphasized that the petitioner had signed an undertaking, voluntarily agreeing to be covered under the NPS, and could not now claim OPS benefits.
Analysis of the Law
- The Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 governed pension benefits before the New Pension Scheme (NPS) was introduced on February 1, 2005.
- The Court noted that employees appointed before the NPS’s introduction should continue to be governed by the OPS unless there was an explicit rule stating otherwise.
- It emphasized that an employee’s pension eligibility should be determined by their initial appointment date and salary disbursement, rather than their regularization date.
Precedent Analysis
- The Court referred to Jugal Kishore Choudhury & 15 Others v. State of Assam, where employees appointed before 2005 were held eligible for the Old Pension Scheme.
- The Court also cited Sanjay Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India, which held that employees whose recruitment process began before the introduction of the New Pension Scheme should not be denied OPS benefits simply because their appointment orders were issued later.
- These cases established that the date of initial appointment is the determining factor for pension eligibility, not subsequent administrative delays.
Court’s Reasoning
- The petitioner’s appointment in 1999, salary payments, and GPF account allotment indicated that he was originally covered under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS).
- His termination was deemed illegal, and upon reinstatement, his service continuity should be recognized from his initial appointment.
- The petitioner’s past service before termination cannot be ignored, as his reinstatement order did not classify him as a fresh appointee.
- The undertaking he signed in 2022 was found not legally binding, as it was obtained under duress and went against his already accrued rights.
- The government’s argument that his regularization in 2022 placed him under the NPS was rejected, as his employment predated the scheme’s introduction.
Conclusion
- The Court directed the authorities to extend the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) benefits to the petitioner, counting his service from December 4, 1999.
- The petition was allowed, and the Court ruled that the petitioner’s past service must be considered for pension purposes.
- The Court held that subsequent administrative re-regularization does not negate previously accrued pension rights.
Implications of the Judgment
- Establishes that initial appointment and salary disbursement determine pension eligibility, not subsequent regularization.
- Sets a precedent for similarly placed employees who were appointed before 2005 but later regularized under the NPS.
- Confirms that undertakings signed under duress cannot override statutory rights.
- May lead to a review of pension claims for employees with similar service histories.
- Reinforces that pension eligibility should be determined based on when an employee started receiving a salary under government service.
