ਹਾਈਕੋਰਟ ਨੇ ਪੁਰਾਣੀ ਪੈਨਸ਼ਨ ਸਕੀਮ ਦੇ ਹੱਕ ਵਿੱਚ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਫੈਸਲਾ
ਮਾਮਲੇ ਦੀ ਸੁਣਵਾਈ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਜਸਟਿਸ ਹਰਸਿਮਰਨ ਸਿੰਘ ਸੇਠੀ ਨੇ ਨਿਰੀਖਣ ਕੀਤਾ:
High Court of Punjab and Haryana Rules in Favor of Old Pension Scheme for Petitioners
*Date: December 5, 2024*
Chandigarh ( Jobsoftoday) – In a landmark decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled in favor of two petitioners, Inder Singh and another, who challenged the applicability of the New Contributory Pension Scheme (NPS) to their employment. The court held that the petitioners, appointed on December 26, 2003, before the introduction of the NPS on January 1, 2004, are entitled to benefits under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS).
Case Background
The petitioners, appointed as clerks through an advertisement issued in June 2001, joined their positions on January 8, 2004. Despite their appointments being finalized in 2003, the state applied the NPS, which took effect in 2004, citing the petitioners’ joining date.
The petitioners contended that they were unfairly placed under the NPS despite being appointed under the OPS regime. They argued that their joining delay was within the permissible time frame and not grounds for denying OPS benefits.
Court's Observations
Presiding over the case, Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi observed:
- The date of appointment, not the joining date, determines the applicable pension scheme.
- The OPS was in force when the petitioners were appointed.
- Applying the NPS based solely on their joining date is arbitrary and unsupported by law.
The court referenced similar judgments, including a Delhi High Court ruling in *Inspector Rajendra Singh vs. Union of India* (2017), where it was held that candidates selected before the introduction of the NPS are entitled to OPS benefits, even if appointments were finalized later.
Judgment Highlights
1. Applicability of OPS: The court ruled that the petitioners are entitled to OPS benefits as their appointments were made before January 1, 2004.
2. Illegal State Action: The court criticized the state for enforcing the NPS arbitrarily and ordered the immediate implementation of OPS for the petitioners.
3. Penalty for Harassment: The court imposed a ₹1 lakh cost on the Director of Public Instructions (Secondary Education), Punjab, for causing unnecessary litigation. The amount is to be used by the Punjab and Haryana State Legal Services Authorities to support underprivileged litigants.
Implications
This decision reinforces the principle that service terms cannot be altered to an employee’s disadvantage post-appointment. It is expected to impact other similar cases where government employees appointed before 2004 have been placed under the NPS.
The state has been directed to comply with the judgment within two weeks, failing which further legal action will be initiated.
