Service Matters -Hon'ble Supreme Court stayed Delhi High Court order extending Old Pension Scheme to Paramilitary Forces.

 Case Title: Union of India & Ors v. Pawan Kumar & Ors,

 Case Details: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 19815/2023  

 DOD 05.07.2023.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 29.

1.  Appeal in Question before Hon’ble Apex Court: Delhi High Court ordered that the benefit of Old Pension Scheme (OPS) in accordance with CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 shall be applicable for all the personnel of Central Armed Police Forces and directed the Centre to issue necessary orders within eight weeks.

2. Question before Hon’ble Apex Court: Whether Old Pension Scheme Is Applicable to Paramilitary Forces. -PARA 1.

3.   Interim Order of the Hon’ble Apex Court: In the meanwhile, there will be a stay of operation of the impugned judgment to the extent it directs that the Old Pension Scheme would be applicable to the para-military forces. We, however, clarify that the petitioners shall abide by Office Memorandum No. 57/05/2021-P&PW(B) dated 03.03.2023 issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, and to that extent, the operation of the impugned judgment has not been stayed. PARA 2.

4.  Facts of the Case: Petitioners/Respondents are employees of different forces namely CRPF, BSF, SSB, CISF, etc. who approached the High Court to quash the OM dated 17.02.2020 denying them the benefit of Old Pension Scheme (OPS) in accordance with CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

5.   Case of Petitioner/s: The petitioners were offered an appointment for the post of Assistant Commandant during the period October 2004 to 2005. By Notification dated 22.12.2003, New Contributory Pension Scheme (NPS) was implemented w.e.f. 01.01.2004, However, the said scheme was not applicable to Armed Forces, as the Forces shall be governed by the OPS already existing. Those who got appointed after NPS came into force due to administrative delay of Govt must get the benefit of OPS contended Petitioners.

6. Case of Respondent/s: Respondents/Petitioner contended that since the petitioners joined the services after coming into force the aforesaid Notification, these petitioners were not entitled to OPS under the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972. They further contended that in terms of Section 3 of the CRPF Act, 1949, CRPF is an Armed Force of the Union of India and the Notification dated 22.12.2003, the “ARMED Forces” implies Army, Navy, and Air Force and not to the entire armed forces of the Union.

7.     Judgement of the Court which is at the challenge before the Hon’ble Apex Court with the reasoning given by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi:

A. The HC perused the December 22, 2003 notification holding that it categorically mentions, “The system would be mandatory for all new recruits to the central Government service from 1st of January 2004 (except the armed forces in the first stage).” “Meaning thereby that the Scheme was not applicable to Armed Forces and the Armed Forces will be governed by the Old Pension Scheme already existing. Also, the said Notification stipulated that the scheme shall not be applicable to Armed Forces, and they shall be governed by the Old Pension Scheme already existing,”

B. Referred to a Supreme Court decision that held that the Central Reserve Police Force is a part of the armed forces. “Also, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, vide Circular dated 6th August 2004 clarified that the Central Forces under the administrative control of the Ministry of Home Affairs have been declared as Armed Forces of the Union”.

C.   High Court referred to another office memorandum dated April 13, 2018 of the Ministry of Home Affairs which showed that the ministry had directed all the Central Armed Police Forces to extend the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme to the petitioners in another petition (2013 decision of Delhi High Court in Paramnand Yadav vs UOI) as well as to “other similarly situated personnel”.

D. High Court went on to hold that when the advertisements were published, the old pension scheme was in force.

E. High Court ruled that the appointment letters of the petitioners were issued in 2004-2005 after the conclusion of the selection process “which took an extra inordinate long time as the advertisement/ notification for the appointment was released in the year 2002 & 2003 for different posts in the Forces”.

F.  Court finally ruled that the notification and the office memorandum as well as orders to the extent that they deny benefits of the old pension scheme to the petitioners as well as other similarly situated armed forces personnel are quashed.

 5.   Case law/Statutory provisions/Notifications/rules/Boks referred:

1.      Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Pension and PW, Government of India dated 17.12.2020.

2.       Naveen Kumar Jha Vs. UOI & Ors. (2012) SCC OnLine Del 5606.

3.       Inspector Rajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. (2017) SCC OnLine Del 7879.

4.       Tanaka Ram & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. 92019) SCC OnLine Del 6962.

5.        Shyam Kumar Choudhary & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11891.

6.       State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Ors. 2015 (1) SCC 347 .

7.       Satya Dev Prajapati and Others v. Delhi High Court, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3911.

8.        Akhilesh Prasad Vs. Union Territory of Mizoram, (1981).

Click here to read the Hon'ble High Court Judgment 

Click here to read the Hon'ble Apex Court Interim Order