Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Order on Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2021
1. Heard on the application for condonation of delay. The delay is of 375 days in filing the appeal.
2. The affidavit is supported to the application shows reasons.
3. The application aforesaid is not contested by the side opposite and accordingly delay in filing appeal is condoned.
4. The application is allowed with the aforesaid.
Order on Memo of Appeal
1. This intra Court appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 assailing the judgment dated 19.12.2019 in Writ -A No.55607 of 2008.
2. Challenge has been made to the grant of benefit of old pension scheme to the petitioners (non-appellants), who were appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil), Irrigation Department in the year 2005.
3. The facts in brief are that Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (in short "Commission") issued an advertisement on 31.12.2002 for recruitment against 361 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil), Irrigation Department. The last date for submission of application form was 27.01.2003. The selection process took place and accordingly select list was forwarded to the State Government on 08.12.2004. Pursuant to the recommendation of Commission, the State Authorities issued appointment letters to various selected candidates on different dates ranging from 02.3.2005 till 10.6.2005. As far as the petitioners (non-appellant herein) are concerned, they were granted appointment letter on 30.3.2005, while they joined service on 07.4.2005 and 04.4.2005 respectively.
4. It is contended by learned Standing Counsel that the old pension scheme was applicable till 31.3.2005. The new pension scheme was applicable to the employees, who had joined service on 1.4.2005 and subsequently, thus no benefit could have been accorded to the petitioners/ non- appellants as they had joined after the cut off date.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/ non-appellants submits that entire selection process stood completed in the year 2004 and the petitioners/non-appellants were given appointment by the orders dated 30.3.2005 as such the relevant date for consideration was 30.3.2005 and not 7.4.2005 and 4.4.2005 as it was the date of joining.
6. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. The issue for consideration is, as to the applicability of new pension scheme which came into force since 1.4.2005, or to give effect to the old pension scheme to the petitioners/ non-appellants as they were given appointment prior to 01.4.2005. The case of the petitioners /non- appellants is that they were given appointment letter on 30.3.2005, thus would be entitled for the benefit of old pension scheme as the date of joining is immaterial.
8. The issue aforesaid has been factually discussed by the learned Single Judge by referring to the judgment of this Court in the case of Satyesh Kumar Mishra and others vs. State of U.P. and others 2016(6) ADJ 808 (LB) and so as the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Inspector Rejendra Singh vs. Union of India 2017 SCC Online Del. 7879. We do not find any error in the judgment. It is not only the date of appointment is relevant but candidate lower in merit out of same selection are governed by the old pension scheme because appointments and joining were given from time to time before even 01.4.2005 thus appellant cannot be deprived from the same benefits. The judgments on the issue has been discussed by the learned Single Judge.
9. In Special Appeal Defective No.117 of 2021 (State of U.P. and 2 Others vs. Mahesh Narain and 2 others) vide order of date, similar view has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court.
10. We therefore do not find any reason to cause interference in the order passed by learned Single Judge and for the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.2.2021 KA