Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: May 21, 2013
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Saqib, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. As per Office Memorandum dated September 10, 1993, pertaining to the subject of grant of temporary status and regularization of casual workers, the scheme notified envisages, vide clause 5(v), that upon regularization 50% of the service rendered under temporary status would be counted for purposes of retirement benefits.
3. Respondent Rameshwar Singh, was a casual worker who acquired temporary status as on September 01, 1993. Needless to state under the Office Memorandum dated September 10, 1993, he would be entitled to have pensionable service determined as per para 5(v) of the said Office Memorandum upon he being regularized; which he was on June 15,
2007.
4. Question which arose before the Tribunal was whether Rameshwar Singh would be required to be governed by the New Pension Scheme introduced by the Central Government on January 01, 2004, or 2013:DHC:2635-DB W.P.(C) 3521/2012 would he be entitled to the previous pension scheme.
5. Admittedly, the New Pension Scheme does not take into account a situation contemplated by the Office Memorandum dated September 10, 1993. Admittedly, if Rameshwar Singh is made a member of the New Pension Scheme, he would not be entitled to the benefit of para 5(v) of the Office Memorandum dated September 10, 1993.
6. Suffice would it be to state that the Office Memorandum in question creates a vested right in favour of a casual/daily wage employee who acquires temporary status. The right is the computation of the service rendered while in temporary status for purposes of pensionery benefits as contemplated by para 5(v) of the Office Memorandum.
7. Under the circumstances it has to be held that the view taken by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent is correct.
8. Before concluding we may note that the instant view taken by the Tribunal was earlier on adopted by the Tribunal when OA No.1195/2006 Umesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. was decided. Challenge to the decision of the Tribunal before this Court vide W.P.(C) No.2294/2007 was a failure when the said writ petition filed by the Union of India was dismissed on September 30, 2007, and we are informed that Union of India could not manage to obtain a Special Leave to Appeal from the Supreme Court.
9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed but without any orders as to costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (V. KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE MAY 21, 2013 mamta