Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1501 - HC - Indian LawsEligibility for appointment as Shastri Teacher - appointment for vacant posts of Junior Basic Teachers (JBT) - Whether Junior Basic Teachers (petitioners) who were initially recruited in 1997 on contract basis as JBTs against regular/sanctioned posts and regularized as such in 2006 are entitled to count their contractual period as qualifying service for purposes of (i) pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and (ii) annual increments? - HELD THAT - The cadre of contractually appointed JBTs (petitioners) and those appointed as Vidya Upasaks, eventually merged into one, i.e. JBT. They all became Junior Basic Teachers. Their initial birth marks vanished after merging into the common cadre. Vidya Upasaks on the basis of their dates of initial appointment as Vidya Upasaks as well as on the basis of their dates of regularization are ranking below the petitioners- Junior Basic Teachers originally appointed on contract basis. Therefore, benefit granted to Vidya Upasaks essentially has to be granted to petitioners who are in the same cadre and senior to Vidya Upasaks on the basis of dates of initial appointment as well as on the basis of their dates of regularization. The petitioners are also entitled to benefit in the case of JOGA SINGH, VINOD KUMAR, SANTOSH KUMARI VERSUS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS. 2015 (6) TMI 1225 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT , they being senior to Joga Singh others similarly situated persons. Whether the prayers made in the writ petitions in respect to counting entire contractual service towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension under CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 as well as for grant of annual increments are barred by limitation under Section 21 of Administrative Tribunals Act and suffer from delay, laches and estoppel? - HELD THAT - The prayers of petitioners for counting their past contractual service as qualifying service towards pensionary benefits under CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 and annual increments as allowed to Joga Singh Other Vidya Upasaks cannot be denied to them (petitioners) on grounds of limitation, delay, laches or acquiescence, however, financial benefits are to be restricted to them to three years prior to filing of the writ petitions. Whether it is open for the State to question the judgment dated 15.6.2015, delivered in CWP No.8953/2013 and other connected matters, in the instant writ petitions. And if so, whether in the facts of the case contractual service of petitioners can be treated as qualifying service for pensionary benefits under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and increments? - HELD THAT - The service rendered by the petitioners on contractual basis deserves to be counted towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits under CCS(Pension) Rules 1972 and for annual increments. The contractual service rendered by the petitioners as Junior Basic Teachers shall be counted towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as well as for annual increments. The consequential financial benefits shall however be restricted to three years prior to filing of the writ petitions. The due and admissible benefits be released to the petitioners within a period of three months from today. Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether Junior Basic Teachers (JBTs) initially recruited on a contract basis are entitled to count their contractual period as qualifying service for purposes of pension and annual increments. 2. Whether the prayers made in the writ petitions are barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act and suffer from delay, laches, and estoppel. 3. Whether it is open for the State to question the judgment in Joga Singh’s case in the instant writ petitions. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Count Contractual Period for Pension and Increments: The petitioners were appointed as JBTs on a contract basis in 1997 against regular sanctioned posts and were regularized in 2006. Joga Singh and other Vidya Upasaks were appointed in 2000 under the 'Vidya Upasak Yojna' and regularized in 2007. The petitioners argued that they should be entitled to the same benefits as Joga Singh, whose service from the date of initial appointment was counted for pension and increments. The court observed that both sets of employees were appointed against regular posts and performed similar duties. The court held that the petitioners, being senior to Vidya Upasaks, are entitled to the same benefits, including counting their contractual service towards qualifying service for pension and annual increments. 2. Limitation, Delay, Laches, and Estoppel: The State argued that the petitioners' claims were barred by limitation and suffered from delay and laches, citing Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act and relevant case law. However, the court noted that the cause of action for the petitioners arose after the dismissal of the SLP against Joga Singh’s judgment in 2016. The petitioners filed their application in 2018, which was within a reasonable time frame. The court held that the petitioners' claims were not barred by limitation, delay, or laches, but restricted the financial benefits to three years prior to the filing of the writ petitions, in line with the principles of continuing wrongs and recurring/successive wrongs. 3. State’s Right to Question Joga Singh’s Judgment: The State contended that the judgment in Joga Singh’s case did not lay down the correct law and that it was open to question in the instant writ petitions. The court acknowledged that the dismissal of an SLP in limine does not constitute a binding precedent. However, the court found the reasoning in Joga Singh’s case to be sound and applicable. The court emphasized that both Vidya Upasaks and contractually appointed JBTs were eventually regularized and merged into one cadre, making it discriminatory to deny the petitioners the same benefits granted to Vidya Upasaks. Conclusion: The court allowed the writ petitions, directing that the contractual service rendered by the petitioners as JBTs be counted towards qualifying service for pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and for annual increments. The financial benefits were restricted to three years prior to the filing of the writ petitions, and the benefits were to be released within three months.
|