Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (1) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2020 (1) TMI 1501 - HC - Indian Laws


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.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates