High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 2648/2012 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI HON’BLE DR. (MRS.) JUSTICE INDIRA SHAH (IA Ansari, J)
Legal Reasoning
Heard Ms. R Borah, learned Central Government Counsel, for the petitioners, and Mr. S Sarma, learned counsel, for the respondents. By the order, dated 16-08-2011, passed in Original Application (in short, ’OA’) No. 150 of 2011, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, di rected the present petitioners, who were respondents in the OA, to allow the app licants, i.e., the respondents herein, to contribute, in the GPF Accounts, in te rms of the old pension scheme. Aggrieved by the order, dated 16-08-2011, an application, seeking review of the directions so given by the order, dated 16-08-2011, aforementioned, was filed by the present petitioners, which gave rise to Review Application No. 1/2012. This review application was disallowed by the learned Tribunal by its order, dated 0 6-03-2012. Aggrieved by their successive failure, the respondents, in the OA, ha ve, now, filed the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate directions. The main subject of controversy, in the OA, was the legality and enforcement of the Clause (ii) of the Office Memorandum (in short, ’OM’) No. 49014/1/2004-Estt (C), dated 26-04-2004, issued by the Government of India. Having considered the new pension scheme, the following clarification was issued by the OM No. 49014/ 1/ 2004-Estt (C), dated 26-04-2004, aforementioned: (cid:28)Subject: Introduction of New Pension Scheme - Modification of scheme for grant of temporary status. The undersigned is directed to say that the scheme for grant of temporary status and regularization of casual workers in Central Govt. Officers formulated in pu rsuance of the judgment dated 16.2.90 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Pr incipal Bench in the case of Raj Kamal & Others vs Union of India has been revie wed in the light of introduction of New Pension Scheme in respect of persons app ointed to the Central Government service on or after 1.1.2004 and it has been de cided to modify the scheme as under: (i) As the new pension scheme is based on defined contributions, the length of qualifying service for the purpose of retirement benefits has lost its releva nce, no credit of casual service, as specified in para 5 (v), shall be available to the casual labourers on their regulation against Group ’D’ posts on or after 1.1.2004. As there is no provision of General Provident Fund in the new pension sc (ii) heme, it will not serve any useful purpose to continue deductions towards GPF fr om the existing casual employees, in terms of para 5(v) of the scheme for grant of temporary status. It is, therefore, requested that no further deduction towar ds General Provident Fund shall be effected from the casual labourers w.e.f. 1.1 .2004 onwards and the amount lying in their General Provident Fund accounts, inc luding deductions made after 1.1.2004, shall be paid to them. 2. The existing guidelines contained in this Department’s OM No. 49014/2/86-Estt . (C) dated 7.6.88 may continue to be followed in the matter of engagement of ca sual workers in the Central Government Offices (cid:29). (Emphasis added) Clause (ii) of the OM No. 49014/1/2004-Estt (C), dated 26-04-2004, whereby the a uthorities concerned were to discontinue deduction towards GPF from the existing casual employees, was put to challenge in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi, and the learned Central Administrative Tribunal struck down the contents, embodied in Clause (ii) of the OM No. 49014 /1/ 2004- Estt. (C), dated 26-04-20 04, aforementioned. Thereafter, the petitioners herein moved Delhi High Court by way of a writ petit ion impugning therein the said order of the learned Tribunal. The said writ peti tion gave rise to WP(C) No. 14247/2006. By order, dated 04-08-2008, while dismis sing the said writ petition, Delhi High Court upheld the order of the learned Ce ntral Administrative Tribunal. The relevant observations, appearing, in this reg ard, in the decision of the Delhi High Court, in WP(C) No. 14247/2006, read as u nder: (cid:28)8. Be it noted that the applicants are enjoying the benefits whatever provided to the regular Group ’D’ employees. In that view of the matter, following the ob servations of the Division Bench orders passed by the Jaipur Bench and Chandigar h Bench in OA No. 284/2004 and OA No. 60/2002 respectively and also the mandate of the Supreme Court in Mohan Lal’s case (supra), we cannot agree with the actio n taken by the DoPT in issuing the impugned order dated 26.4.2004 by which the d eduction of contribution towards the GPF amount has been withdrawn. Accordingly, the order dated 26.4.2004 is hereby quashed and the authorities are directed to follow the practice whatever prevalent before issuing of the aforesaid impugned order. (cid:29) In the circumstances, mentioned above, the learned Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, com mitted no error, factually or legally, in abiding by the decision, which has bee n arrived at by Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 14247/2006. Though the petitioners, now, claim that as against the above decision of Delhi H igh Court, they have filed a Special Leave Petition, it is conceded, on behalf o f the petitioners, that so far, no interim direction of stay or suspension of th e order passed by Delhi High Court or of the learned Central Administrative Trib unal, Delhi, has been passed in the Special Leave Petition, which the present pe titioners have filed. Situated thus, it becomes abundantly clear that the learned Tribunal, in the pre sent case, was wholly correct in abiding by the decision of Delhi High Court and we see no reason to interfere with the impugned direction, which has been passe d by the learned Tribunal, by its order, dated 16-08-2011, nor do we notice any infirmity in the order, dated 06-03-2012, passed, in Review Application No. 01/2 012, by the learned Tribunal. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we do not find that t he petitioners have been able to make out any case calling for this Court’s inte rference with the impugned order by taking recourse to extraordinary jurisdictio n of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition is, therefore, not admitted and shall accordingly stand dismi ssed. The interim directions, passed in this case, shall accordingly stand vacated.