NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioners claim that they have to be governed by the old pension scheme and not by the new pension scheme.

(2.) The petitioners had applied for the post of Gram Sachiv which had been advertised in the year 1992, 1993 and 1997 respectively. They were selected but appointment letters were not issued to them resulting into filing of various writ petitions i.e. CWP No. 16376 of 1999 and other connected cases. Those petitions were admitted. During the pendency of those petitions many unrelated and related developments took place. The stand of the State for justifying non issuance of appointment letters to the petitioners was that in the meantime the State had abolished Octroi and had proposed that the persons who had been rendered surplus in the Municipal Committees would be adjusted against the posts which had been advertised when the petitioners had applied. After filing that written statement the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was amended in 2003 abolishing the posts of Gram Sachiv and introducing the post of Gram Vikas Sahayak. Thereafter again the Act was amended by amending Act No. 7 of 2006 which came into force w.e.f 17.01.2006 whereby the posts of Gram Sachiv were re-introduced. Pursuant to the amendment of 2006 those persons who had been appointed as Gram Vikas Sahayaks were relieved and they also filed writ petitions which were decided along with CWP No. 16376 of 1999. As regards the petitions filed by the Gram Vikas Sahayaks, the learned Judge dismissed them. However, as regards the petitions filed by the persons like the petitioners who had been selected in the year 1999 the learned Judge held as follows:-

(3.) I am afraid this argument cannot be accepted because if it is accepted it would raise many anomalous issues. The petitioners would then claim ACP and those persons who were otherwise appointed after 01.01.2006 in routine and were senior to the petitioners would end up getting not only less pay but being covered by the new pension scheme while their juniors like the petitioners would cover under the old pension scheme. It is not a case where the Court had categorically held that the petitioners were illegally deprived of the jobs in 1999. The Court had recognised that the posts for which the petitioners had competed were to be filled up by surplus employees of Municipal Bodies. The Court had also noticed that there were 600 posts which had become available upto the year 2006 after the re-introduction of the posts of Gram Sachiv. The matter can also be looked at from another angle. If the amending Act of 2006 had not come into the force and the posts of Gram Sachiv had not been re-introduced, the petitioners would have had no claim.