$~21

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 11646/2018
PATIL GOPAL BABULAL & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr.Anil Kumar
Sahu, Mr. Mohit Sharma & Ms. Arti
Rathore, Advocates
versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Anil Soni,CGSC with
Mr. Abhinav Tyagi, Advocates
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
ORDER
% 02.05.2019
1. 94 Petitioners working with the Indo Tibetan Border Police („ITBP‟) have
filed the present petition for direction to the Respondents to consider them to
be members of the Old Pension scheme in terms of the Central Civil
Services (Pension Rules), 1972.

2. The background facts are that in 2003 ITBP notified 1400 vacancies for
appointments to the post of ITBP Constable (GD). The cut off date for the
eligibility was to be decided as on 1st August, 2003. The last date for
application was 15th September, 2003. During December, 2003 recruitment
process were organised and test were conduct for selection of considerable
candidates and the entire process of selection was completed in the month of
December, 2003. In respect of some of the candidates, the medical tests
were conducted in good time. However, in regard to certain other
candidates the process of issuance of appointment letters got delayed. A new

W.P.(C) 11646/2018 Page 1 of 5

Contributory Pension Scheme was introduced on 22nd December, 2003 and
was to be implemented with effect from January, 2004.
“This was monetarily less beneficial than the Old Pension Scheme.
Those who had been offered letters of appointment on 17 th December,
2003 were covered by the Old Pension Scheme whereas those
candidates like the Petitioners whose letters of offers of appointment
were issued only in February, 2004 were deprived of the benefit of the
Old Pension Scheme.”

3. Appointment letters in the case of the Petitioners herein were issued

between 31st December, 2003 and 9th January, 2004. As a result they have
put under the New Pension Scheme. The delay was not on the part of the
Petitioners and for no fault of theirs they were placed in the New
Contributory Pension which was less beneficial to them.

4. A batch of the Petitioners who were selected pursuant to a Sub-Inspector

(DE), Central Police Organisation („CPO‟) Examination 2002 and were also
deprived of the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme on account of the delay
on the part of the Respondents in issuing the appointment orders. They filed
WP (C) No. 3834/2013 (Parmanand Yadav v. Union of India) in this
Court. By a judgement dated 12th February, 2015 this Court allowed the said
writ petition. The Court in doing so followed its earlier order dated 26 th
May, 2011 in WP (C) No.5400/2010 (Avinash Singh v. Union of India)
which was followed in the decision dated 2nd November, 2012 in WP (C)
No.3827/2012 (Naveen Kumar Jha v. Union of India).

5. As far as ITBP was concerned, some personnel approached this Court

with WP(C) No. 2810/2016 (Inspector Rajendra Singh v. Union of India)

W.P.(C) 11646/2018 Page 2 of 5

was filed by certain personnel of the BSF seeking similar relief. By a
detailed judgment dated 27th March, 2017 the said petition was allowed
granting the Petitioner‟s relief similar to the one being sought in the present
case. It was declared that they would be covered by the Old Pension Scheme
which was more beneficial.

6. An order was passed on 13th January, 2016 by the Ministry of Home

Affairs („MHA‟) implementing the judgment in Parmanand Yadav vs.
Union of India (supra) and it was decided to extend the benefits of the Old
Pension Scheme to all similar situated persons who sat for the 2002 Exam.
As far as ITBP is concerned, several representations were made. By an
order dated 4th September, 2017 passed by the Director General, ITBP three
of the ITBP personnel who took the July, 2003 exam but could join only on
4th July, 2005 were extended the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme.

7. The Petitioners in the present case also made similar representations

which were recommended by the DIG (R & P). They however were not
granted the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme.

8. On 1st September, 2018 the Commandant CRPF issued a letter to the

Company Commanders, for extending the benefit of the ruling in
Parmanand Yadav (supra) to all personnel of the CRPF, who had
completed the recruitment process in 2003-2004 and were given
appointment letters in 2004. It is on the same basis that the present
Petitioners are seeking reliefs.

W.P.(C) 11646/2018 Page 3 of 5

9. It must be noticed that similar persons who were Assistant Commandant
in CRPF were granted relief by this Court by its order dated 9th April, 2018
in WP(C) No. 1358/2017 titled Shyam Kumar Choudhary v. Union of
India. As far as BSF is concerned, a judgment is passed by this Court on
12th February, 2019 in WP(C) No. 6680/2017 (Tanaka Ram v. Union of
India) granting benefits to 115 Constables of the BSF.

10. What is significant is that there has been a general policy decision taken
to extend the benefit of these rulings to all members of the CAPFs. OM
dated 13th April, 2018 issued by the MHA (Police-II Division) in this regard
reads as under:
“OFFICE MEMORANDUM
“Sub:- Regarding implementation of the Court order passed in
WP(C) No. 3834/2013 titled Parmanand Yadav & 125
others v. UOI and other & WP No. 2810/2016 titled
Inspector Rajendra Singh & 29 others v. UOI and other
before the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi.

SSC conducted CPO‟s (SI) Exam during the year 2002, for which
final result was declared in the month of August, 2003. BSF issued
an offer of appointment during the month of December 2003
directing candidates to report Training Centres in the month of
January, 2004.

2. In the meantime, the Government of India had introduced the

New Pension Scheme vide GOI Notification dtd. 22.12.2003, which
is applicable to the personnel who have entered into Government
service w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and onwards.

3. Some BSF candidates approached Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi

with a prayer that issuing appointment letter after 01.01.2004 is the
Administrative lapse on the part of CAPFs/BSF, hence, they may be

W.P.(C) 11646/2018 Page 4 of 5

 extended the benefits of Old Pension Scheme by way of filing
WP(C) No. 3834/2013 & WP(C) No. 2810/2016 before the Hon‟ble
High Court of Delhi, which was allowed vide order dtd. 12.02.2015
& 27.03.2017 respectively.

4. This Ministry after detailed deliberation & in consultation of

DoLA & DoP&PW agree to implement the Judgment i.e. to extend
the benefits of Old Pension Scheme without any back wages or
seniority in case of petitioner & other similar placed left over
candidates.

5. Now, Competent authority desires that all other CAPFs (except

BSF) may also check their record and if any similar case is found
they may examine & take appropriate action on the similar lines by
taking reliance of BSF case, to avoid similar litigation in future.”

11. The counter affidavit of the Respondents does not dispute that the above
OM exists whereby a policy decision has been taken by the MHA.
Consequently, there is no difficulty in this Court directing the Respondents
to extend to the present Petitioner the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme
consistent with the above policy decision.

12. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed and a
direction is issued to the Respondents to extend the benefit of the Old
Pension Scheme to each of the present Petitioners and pass consequential
orders within a period of eight weeks from today.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

I.S. MEHTA, J.
MAY 02, 2019/mw

W.P.(C) 11646/2018 Page 5 of 5