CONTEMPLATION REQUIRED ----AINVSA broods over it

                 AINVSA/CEC/2011-12/126                                        Dated 19^th March,2012

          To

All Principals & Staff

All JNVS of Kerala

The Staff ,All ROs & HQ

Sir/Madam.

Belying our expectations Ranchi couer case disapponed and frustrate us terribly. We have been left in lurch  directionless and dumbfounded.Though we had offered all possible helps to those concerned at Ranchi and advised them frequently of the pitfalls and deficiencies they could not realize it. From the verdict of the court we would like to list out the following shortcomings :

1.       The writ was originally filed as an individual one.

2.       “The petitioner has unnecessarily without any such authorization(by AINVSA) taken upon himself as representative(of AINVSA) and implead all the employees of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti as co-petitioners, although non of them has comef orward on their own before this court”.

3.       The advocate who was entrusted with the job initially could not understand the circumstances in which we have been denied GOI Pension. Therfore he could not proffer convincing points.The petitioner’s knowledge about the case was skin deep.However he could not take the advice of the knowledgeable in the right spirit.

4.       Since the petitioner realized that the HC advocate could not do his job he had to try a Sc advocate.

5.       The SC advocate clearly understood that it could be gold mine and the petitioner could be taken for a ride.

6.       The affadavits invited from all staff at the behest of the Sc advocate proved more more damaging as the court pronounced that out of frustration the petitioner was misleading the Court.

7.       The court remarked the absurdity of trying to file 8058 affidavits even outside the jurisdiction of Jharkhand HC.

8.       The petitioner persuade by the SC advocate that it would add strength to the case if affadavits were filed was viewed by the court as a frustrated attempt which exposed the confusion clouded over the real status of the case as an individual one or an Service Association case.

9.       The petitioner was a deputationist who was absorbed into service in 1995 which disqualified from presenting very strong points like

a.       4^th Pay Commission’s proposal for one time switch over which was valid up to 1994

b.      The direction and reminders by Kolthakar,Priyadarshi Thakur,Geets Ram and Valsala G Kutty.

c.       The petitioner was unaware of the meeting convened specially for NVS in 2000 by the Secretary SE & HE in which directions were given to report to the govt showing the implementation side of GOI pension.

d.      The petitioner could not plead the govt to evaluate why the Pay commissions recommendation be implemented when all the rest of the recommendations were  easily implemented.

e.      The petitioner was not able to state about the gazette notification which NVS dismissed as a report by the media.

f.        The petitioner could not clarify the pointout like CPF,GOI Pension and New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme so that court took it as all identical and any one is equal to the rest.

g.       The court states that “In sum and substance it has been stated on behalf of the respondents that there was no pension scheme in existence for the employees of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti.”The petitioner could not  convinve the vital point in pension rule that  NPS could not be implemented without having GOI Pension.

h.      (Para 7)The petitioner could not throw light on the list of autonomous organisations implemented pension after NVS was established thus reversing the thought of court.

2.       We were given a lot of hope and assurance by the petitioner regarding the success of the case. However its was proven to be smugness of the petitioner’s or others belonging to the committee which steered the case .Even after loosing the case neither the petitioner nor others could realize the facts. They still hold the dangerous view that they could do it better with the same amount of ideas by moving SC.

3.       Hence what wish to convey all the staff of NVS are the following :

a.       Approaching SC with the same mental status or documents or arguments will prove to be a terrific disaster that will affect not merely the petitioner but thousands of people who live in poorer conditions.

b.      The present advocate is not resourceful or honest enough to carry on with the case to a success.

c.       It is necessary to go for a review petition and get a better opinion from the court.

d.      The court has seen no merit in this case so it is worthless to proceed in  a similar fashion.

e.      Pension is not an isolated issue though many did not come forward with the issue boldly. Therefore the committee for court case has to be reconstituted with knowledgeable persons and the same must have a national character.

f.        The entire matter has to discussed threadbare. Nothing should be concealed and false hope given to others as it happened heretofore. Finally there won’t be a chance for a retake.We should not reach a no-return precipice.

g.       It has to be admitted by the present committee and the petitioner that they could have done better if they had minded the words of those who tried to guide them properly.

Hence my expectation is obvious that every aspirant of GOI pension sheme must understand the all aspects clearly and convince Sri.P N Misra and the Court case Committee at Ranchi to understand the sentiments of 17200 employees of NVS who also stand by them to fight out the issue.

1.       A review petition has to filed

2.       A lot of thought has to go into the matter before approaching SC.More home wok is to be done with more hidden points and documents in possession of a few others.

3.       The committee is now doubly responsible for at least 8958 staff and indirectly to the rest as such they cannot decide the fate single handedly or ham-handedly.

Kindly call those at Ranchi or send appeals to this effect thogh SMS or E-mails to them.

Thanking you,

Sincerely yours

(T P Mani)

.

                 

                                                                  Thank you,

                                                                          Yours faithfully,

                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                   (T P Mani)                                                                                                    

                                                                                     National President

Copy to :           1.  Sri.P N Misra,JNV Ranchi

2.  Smt.P S Bara,Principal & Coordinator Pension Case

                   

Yep, Now What does Samiti say about Rule 10 of RP Rules 2008?

Please study  about the Increments to be released in the Year 2006 vide  Minstry of Finance  O.M as under:

http://finmin.nic.in/the_ministry/dept_expenditure/notification/misc/DateofIncrement_RevPayRules2008.pdf

Hope you got it !


(a)The first increment after fixation of pay on 1-1-2006 in the revised pay structure should be on 1-7-2006 for whom the date of next increment was between 1 July 2006 to 1 Jan 2007   [Already mentioned in Rule 10 of RP Rules 2008,  ie., having more than 6mths continuous service ).

(b) The above increment  would   be released on 1-7-2006    to those employees also  whose annual increments fell  between Feb  to June during 2006 .(Clarified now in context to Rule 10)


To sum up all  the senior employees would get one more increment in  July 2006 . Does Samiti consent to this????

Sanik schools and K.V s had already released first increments on 1 July 2006 to those old guys prior to 2006 and having  annual increments  in the months such as August, Sept etc. But did R.Os of Samiti  apply this rule 10 of RP Rules 2008 during fixation??

Now what about this new clarification???

      Its high time that Samiti should not deprive the privileges  due to the staff, but rather start thinking of  
      .....Staff Welfare measures

Review Petition OR to Supreme Court?

   AINVSA/CEC/2011-12/125                                        Dated 14^th March,2012

To

Sri P N Misra

Office Superintendent

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya

Ranhi

Sub : Request to file Review Petition on the dismissed Writ before

          approaching  Supreme Court.

Dear friend,

At the outset  I appreciate for your initiative  and hard work to file a writ petition in the High Court of Ranchi for GOI Pension and mobilize the entire staff community of NVS to support both emotionally and financially. Nevertheless  your writ petition (WP (S) No.4946of 2008 and IANo. 3585 of 2011 was dismissed through the verdict pronounced by the Court consisting Hon’ble Chief Justice and Justice Apersh Kumar Singh.

The court verdict was a rude shock to every Navodayan as it has imperiled our existence. Taking into consideration the  following two fatal pronouncements contained in the court verdict we have to be very cautious while moving the Supreme Court on this issue.

1.             The writ petition is without any merit and accordingly, dismissed.

2.             The writ petitioner has failed to make out a case for issuance of any direction or mandamus upon the respondents in the manner prayed by him in para 1 of the writ petition.

In this crucial context in the  larger interest of our staff , we have to take some urgent measures.

On the basis of my experience and understanding the entire tenor of the court pronouncementsI would like to make following requests:

At this time we should not think of going to the Supreme Court. Instead, we must file Review Petition in the Ranchi High Court.  We have to give utmost importance to the facts stated by the Hon’ble High  court in the 15^th to 17^th paragraphs.

Even before the commencement of the arguments we had offered our cooperation and sharing of all the documents with you through the principal, JNV Ranchi. After reading the judgment , unequivocally I can state that , if you had made use of the documents under our custody, the fate of the entire case would have been a different one.  Unfortunately you did not pay heed to our requests.

I understand that the case was dismissed mainly because of the lack of necessary documents. If you go to the Supreme Court without necessary supporting documents, the fate will be terribly catastrophic.

So I request you to take immediate steps to file a review petition in the High Court before filing a case in the Supreme Court.  If you make  a request we are ready to fax or send by speed post all documents under our custody.   A delay in filing the review petition will spoil our chance. Moreover at the time of filing review petition, make it in the name of AINVSA and include Shri. J.K. Singh also.  The copy of the Registration Certificate of the AINVSA also may be attached along with the review petition.   It is better to go to the Supreme Court only after getting the verdict of the review petition.

So I request you to take right steps which would be  beneficial for all the employees of NVS.

                 

                                                                  Thank you,

                                                                          Yours faithfully,

                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                   (T P Mani)                                                                                                    

                                                                                     National President

                                                                            AINVSA,CEC

Copy to: All CEC Members of AINVSA

              All JNVs                                                                   

Government mooting health insurance scheme focusing non-CGHS areas

Government said it was contemplating introduction of a health insurance scheme for central government employees and pensioners with special focus on non-CGHS areas.

Stating this in a written reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha, Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad said the serving central government employees in non-CGHS areas are provided healthcare facilities under the CS (MA) Rules, 1994, but pensioners are not covered under these rules.

The Minister said the pensioners are, however, entitled to a fixed medical allowance of Rs 300 per month.

He said pensioners residing in non-CGHS areas have the option to become a CGHS member in any CGHS-covered city of their choice to avail the medical facilities under the Scheme

JUDGEMENT EXTRACT of PENSION CASE

The instant Interlocutory application has been filed on
behalf of the petitioner praying therein to implead 8598 employees of the
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti as petitioners in the present writ petition.
The petitioner has unnecessarily, at the fag end and at a very late stage
sought to implead about 8598 employees/ staffs of the Navodaya Vidyalaya
Samiti situated in different parts of the country as petitioners in the present writ
petition. Moreover, petitioner has unnecessarily without any such authorization
taken upon himself as representative and implead all the employees of the
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti as co-petitioners, although non of them has come
forward on their own before this court.
The said prayer is totally misconceived and cannot be allowed.
Accordingly, the said I.A. No. 3585 of 2011 seeking impleadment of 8598
employees of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti is, therefore dismissed as without
any basis.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….ever since theinception of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and after being registered in

February, 1986 the employees of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti have never

been given the option of G.P.F./ Pension under the Pension Rule, 1972. All

through till 2008 the employees were governed by the C.P.F. Rules, although,

there was persistent demand from the employees for introduction of the

Pension. The demands of the employees for introduction of pension were

considered by the government from time to time but could not be agreed to

since as per the decision taken by the Government of India on the

recommendations of Fourth Pay Commission.all the C.P.F beneficiaries in

service as on 1st January, 1986 had been given an option to switch over to

Pension / G.P.F/ Scheme. As the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti was established

as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the said

recommendations were not applicable to the employees of Navodaya

Vidyalaya Samiti.

11. In the circumstances, it is submitted that ultimately it was decided by

the Government to give option to the existing employees either to join the

New Pension Scheme, 2004 or to continue with the existing C.P.F scheme.

For the new recruits joining after 1.4.2009, the New Pension Scheme is

mandatory.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

“The petitioner has notbeen able to show any grounds for treating the said cut of date as arbitrary,unreasonable and irrational or in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution ofIndia. The mere fact that other institutions had been governed by different

pensionary schemes since earlier point of time will not entitle the petitioner to

claim that the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti is legally obliged to follow the same

as it is an autonomous body, admittedly framed under the Societies

Registration Act. As such even the employees in service prior to 1.1.2004

have been granted benefits to switch over to the new scheme as per the

provisions of the scheme. Sympathies have no place in a society governed by

the Rule of law as been eminently observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

para 31 the judgment delivered in the case of Sudhir Kumar Consul Vrs.

Allahabad Bank (Supra) which is as follows:-

“31. We have sympathies for the appellant

but, in a society governed by the rule of law,

sympathies cannot override the Rules and Regulations.

We may recall the observations made by this Court

while considering the issue of compassionate

appointment in public service”.

16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the factual

position discussed above, we are of the considered view that the writ

petitioner has failed to make out a case for issuance of any direction or

mandamus upon the respondents in the manner prayed by him in para 1 of

the writ petition.

17. The writ petition is without any merit and accordingly, dismissed.

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
The 2nd day of March, , 2012
A. Mohanty

A Good News for Senior PGTs

Some of the Senior PGTs have been promoted to Vice Principals , wef  April 2012.
See the link Promotion of PGTs in the site WWW.navodaya.nic.in ....

Congratulations to all those PGTs... -   Best Wishes from all  AINVSA office bearers

PENSION CASE DISMISSED BY HIGH COURT

It is highly regretted that the Pension Case for GOI 1972 filed in High Court by Shri Mishra is dismissed as reported by some reliable sources\\...

Whether review petition would help? AINVSA TP Mani's Notice follows shortly...



                                             JHARKHAND JUDGEMENT is as follows

W.P.(S.). No. 4946 of 2008
-----
In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
------
Shri P.N.Mishra …………… Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India & others ……… Respondents
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma
For the respondents : Md. Mokhtar Khan, Prabhash Kumar.
Present: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
-----------
C.A.V. on: 09.02.2012 Pronounced on: 02.03.2012
Reportable
I.A. NO. 3585 OF 2011
Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. The instant Interlocutory application has been filed on
behalf of the petitioner praying therein to implead 8598 employees of the
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti as petitioners in the present writ petition.
The petitioner has unnecessarily, at the fag end and at a very late stage
sought to implead about 8598 employees/ staffs of the Navodaya Vidyalaya
Samiti situated in different parts of the country as petitioners in the present writ
petition. Moreover, petitioner has unnecessarily without any such authorization
taken upon himself as representative and implead all the employees of the
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti as co-petitioners, although non of them has come
forward on their own before this court.
The said prayer is totally misconceived and cannot be allowed.
Accordingly, the said I.A. No. 3585 of 2011 seeking impleadment of 8598
employees of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti is, therefore dismissed as without
any basis.
W.P.(S.). No. 4946 of 2008
1. This writ petition has been preferred by the sole petitioner Sri
P.N.Mishra seeking issuance of writ, direction, directions commanding upon the
respondents to implement and adopt uniform and consistent pension Rule for
entire teaching and non-teaching staffs of the Navodaya Vidyalaya as has been
adopted in respect of other educational institutions of the Human Resource
2
Department, Government of India.
2. Petitioner has further assailed the pension scheme approved w.e.f.
1.1.2004 and prayed to declare it as ultravires to article 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India and not framed under article 309 of the Constitution of
India. It is stated that the aforesaid scheme has been published by a gazette
notification dated 31.7.2008, so far as staffs of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti is
concerned.
3. Facts of the case are that petitioner claims to be an executive member
of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, B.I.T. Mesra, Ranchi Branch represented
through All India Navodaya Vidyalaya Staff Association. It is stated that
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya schools have been established all over India
by Human Resource Department, Government of India in the year 1985. It is
further stated that by office memorandum no. 4/1/87-PIC-1 dated 1.5.1987,
the Human Resource Department , Government of India decided to
implement the Rules including all the service benefits and pensionary benefits
for teaching and non teaching staffs of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti. As per the
petitioner the executive committee of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti in its
meeting held on 17.1.1992 decided to adopt the Rules and Regulations,
circular and procedures applicable to the central government Mutatis &
Mutandis till such time the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti formulates its own
Rules, which is annexed as annexure-2 to the writ application. However, in
the subsequent paragraphs of the writ petition itself it has been stated on
behalf of the petitioner that a parliamentary standing committee of Human
Resource Department in its 154th report presented before the Lok Sabha and
Rajya Sabha on 2.3.2005 and 3.3.2005 respectively strongly recommended
the pensionary benefits to be given to the teaching and non-teaching staffs of
the Navodaya Vidyalaya Schools and Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Schools
and that the said benefits to be extended at par with other schools governed
by the Human Resource Department, Government of India. He has further
referred to strong recommendation made by the Parliamentary standing
3
committee on 30.11.2006, 17.8.2007 in its 184th and 198th reports. It is further
submitted that the report has been submitted by a review committee of the
Human Resource Department, Government of India on 29.1.2004 suggesting
similar treatment to the employees of the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya
Schools with those of the teaching and non-teaching staffs of Kendriya
Vidyalaya Schools for extending and admitting such pensionary benefits.
4. It also appears from the averments made in the writ petition that the
commissioner of Navodaya Vidyalaya Schools , who is controlling authority of
Navodaya Vidyalaya Schools , New Delhi had made recommendations on
29.12.2006 for enforcement of pensionary benefits to the teaching and nonteaching
staffs of Navodaya Vidyalaya Schools / Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya Schools at par with the employees of the other educational
institutions governed by the Human Resource Department, Union of India.
The said recommendation is annexed as annexure-3 series.
5. Based on the aforesaid submissions of facts it is submitted on behalf of
the petitioner that teaching and non-teaching staffs of Navodaya Vidyalaya
Schools / Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Schools are being discriminated
arbitrarily denying their pensionary benefits and other benefits as given to
similarly situated educational institutions of Human Resource Department,
Government of India. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the notification
contained in annexure-1 is highly prejudicial to the teaching and non-teaching
staffs of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, who has been appointed before
1.1.2004 and as such may be declared ultravires violating article 14, 16 and
21of the Constitution of India. The government has come out with a condition
that on account of notification contained in annexure-1 there remain
uncertainty with respect to pensionary benefits for those employed in Jawahar
Navodaya Schools prior to 1.1.2004. Based upon the aforesaid facts the writ
petitioner has prayed for the reliefs as made in para 1 of the writ petition.
6. A number of affidavits have been filed and exchanged on behalf of the
parties.Respondents No. 1 to 4 have appeared and filed number of affidavits
4
contesting the stands of the respondents. In sum and substance it has been
stated on behalf of the respondents that there was no pension scheme in
existence for the employees of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti. The Navodaya
Vidyalaya Samiti Schools in fact had adopted Contributory Pension Fund
Schemes. On the repeated demand of the employees , the Government of
India has approved the introduction of new pension scheme for all the
regular employees joining the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti after the date of
notification, with an option for the regular employees of Navodaya Vidyalaya
Samiti , as on date of notification of New Pension Scheme, to continue with
the existing C.P.F. Scheme or to join the New Pension Scheme. In case the
employee opted for New Pension Scheme in that case the amount
accumulated in the C.P.F account will be transferred to the pension fund
under the new pension scheme. As per instruction of Government of India the
New Pension Scheme is applicable for all the employees, who joined
government service after 1.1.2004 and by allowing employees who had joined
Navodaya Vidayalaya Samiti working prior to 1.1.2004 to opt for New Pension
Scheme.
7. It is further stated that there are several autonomous bodies in the
country where old pension scheme benefit has not been extended to its
employees. The employees of the Samiti cannot be allowed to take plea since
other institutions have the benefit of pension, the same should be extended as
well.
8. Earlier by order dated 7.12.2011 the respondents were directed to give
their positive stand whether there was any G.P.F./ Pension Scheme in the
year 1986-87 when these appointment were given to the employees of the
Navodaya Vidyalaya. This was in context of the reference of a document
shown during the course of argument wherein it was stated that
G.P.F./Pension Scheme referred to in the document indicating that if the
option is not received within the stipulated period it will be presumed that he
or she will be opting G.P.F/Pension. In response to that a counter affidavit
5
was filed by the respondents no. 1 to 4 specifically in respect of the
observations made by this court in its order dated 7.12.2011.
9. In para 8 of their affidavit it has been stated that Navodaya Vidalaya
Samiti was constituted and registered under Society Registration Act, 1860 in
the month of February, 1986(annexure-A to the counter affidavit) and by
ministry of Finance notification dated 11.11.1991 the name of Navodaya
Vidyalaya Samiti was added in the Scheduled of Provident Fund Act, 1925
( annexure-B). This was followed by Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti circular
dated 17.12.1991. It is stated that Rules for absorption of deputationists in
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti are enclosed as annexure-D.
10. It is the categorical stand of the respondents that the petitioner, Sri
P.N.Mishra came on deputation from Bihar State Leather Industry
Development Corporation, Ranchi to the post of Office Superintendent
initially for a period of three years w.e.f 3.3.1990 (annexure-E). Subsequently,
on acceptance of resignation from his post in the parent organization, he was
absorbed in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti w.e.f. 1.7.1995 vide order dated
4.4.1997(annexure-F). The terms and conditions of his appointment were as
given in the permanent absorption Rules of the Samiti ( Annexure-D). The
respondent have submitted that the petitioner is guided by the terms and
conditions of his absorption made as per the Rules of the Samiti. It is
categorically been stated on behalf of the respondents that ever since the
inception of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and after being registered in
February, 1986 the employees of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti have never
been given the option of G.P.F./ Pension under the Pension Rule, 1972. All
through till 2008 the employees were governed by the C.P.F. Rules, although,
there was persistent demand from the employees for introduction of the
Pension. The demands of the employees for introduction of pension were
considered by the government from time to time but could not be agreed to
since as per the decision taken by the Government of India on the
recommendations of Fourth Pay Commission, all the C.P.F beneficiaries in
6
service as on 1st January, 1986 had been given an option to switch over to
Pension / G.P.F/ Scheme. As the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti was established
as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the said
recommendations were not applicable to the employees of Navodaya
Vidyalaya Samiti.
11. In the circumstances, it is submitted that ultimately it was decided by
the Government to give option to the existing employees either to join the
New Pension Scheme, 2004 or to continue with the existing C.P.F scheme.
For the new recruits joining after 1.4.2009, the New Pension Scheme is
mandatory.
12. From the submission made on behalf of the petitioner read with
averments made in the writ petition and the contention made on behalf of the
respondents together with the averments made in the counter affidavits
including the last affidavit dated 6.2.2012, one thing is clear that even the
petitioner admits that the benefits of pensionary scheme were not available to
the employees of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti till the notification of the said
scheme in the year 2008 giving option to the existing employees to join the
new pension scheme, 2004 or to continue with the existing C.P.F. Scheme.
Moreover, from the averments made in the writ petition itself it is absolutely
clear that taking note of the repeated demand of the employees of the
Navodaya Vidalaya Samiti even the Parliamentary committee had made
strong recommendations for inclusion of the employees of Navodaya
Vidyalaya Samiti under the pensionary scheme and for treating them at par
with other employees of the educational institutions under the Human
Resource Department, Government of India. It appears that based upon the
said recommendations itself the Government of India finally decided to come
out with a notification in the year 2008 whereby the employees of the
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti were allowed to join the New Pension Scheme,
2004 or to continue with the existing C.P.F. Scheme. This fact is also clear
from the affidavits filed by the respondents as well as the last affidavit dated
7
6.2.2012.
13. On the other hand petitioner had initially joined as a deputationist under
the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, whose services were later on absorbed w.e.f.
1.7.1995 vide Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti order dated 4.4.1997 ( annexure-F
to the affidavit dated 6.2.2012). The said order clearly speaks that the
petitioner is being absorbed permanently as Office Superintendent in the
Samiti w.e.f. 1.7.1995 under the terms and conditions as laid down by the
Samiti. Petitioner, thereafter is guided by the Rules framed by the Navodaya
Vidyalaya Samiti and are governed by the same.
14. It is a settled principle of law that cut of date of notification of
pensionary scheme is within domain of the employer and is not subject to
interference ordinarily unless it is arbitrary and unreasonable and some gross
case of violation of Article 14 is made out. It would be profitable to quote the
observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on the choice of
cut of date in the matter of grant of benefit of pension etc. on an employee by
his employer. Reference may be made to the judgment delivered in the case
of Sudhir Kumar Consul Vrs. Allahabad Bank, reported in (2011) 3 SCC
486 which is as follows:-
“18. Moreover, the fixing of the cut-off date for
granting retirement benefits such as gratuity or pension
under the different schemes incorporated in the
subordinate legislation, thereby, creating two distinct
and separate classes of employees is well within the
ambit of Article 14 of the Constitution. The differential
treatment of two sets of officers appointed prior to the
notified date would not offend Article 14 of the
Constitution. The cut-off date may be justified on the
ground that additional outlay as involved or the fact that
under the terms of appointment, the employee was not
entitled to the benefit of pension or retirement.
22. In All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers'
Assn. v. Union of India, the Retired Officers' Association
of Reserve Bank of India questioned the validity of
introduction of pension scheme in lieu of Contributory
Provident Fund Scheme. The bank employees, who
retired prior to 1-1-1986, had not been given benefit of
the said Pension Scheme. This Court held that the said
cut-off date was neither arbitrary nor artificial or
whimsical. It was further observed: (SCC pp. 677-78,
para 10)
“10. … The underlying principle is that when the
State decides to revise and liberalise an existing
pension scheme with a view to augmenting the social
security cover granted to pensioners, it cannot ordinarily
8
grant the benefit to a section of the pensioners and deny
the same to others by drwing an artificial cut-off line
which cannot be justified on rational grounds and is
wholly unconnected with the object intended to be
achieved. But when an employer introduces an entirely
new scheme which has no connection with the existing
scheme, different considerations enter the decision
making process. One such consideration may be the
financial implications of the scheme and the extent of
capacity of the employer to bear the burden. Keeping in
view its capacity to absorb the financial burden that the
scheme would throw, the employer would have to
decide upon the extent of applicability of the scheme.”
23. In UGC v. Sadhana Chaudhary this Court has
observed: (SCC p. 546, para 21)
“21. … It is settled law that the choice of a date
as a basis for classification cannot always be dubbed as
arbitrary even if no particular reason is forthcoming for
the choice unless it is shown to be capricious or
whimsical in the circumstances. When it is seen that a
line or a point there must be and there is no
mathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, the
decision of the legislature or its delegate must be
accepted unless it can be said that it is very wide off the
reasonable mark.”
30. In State of Bihar v. Bihar Pensioners Samaj this
Court held: (SCC p. 71, para 17)
“17. We think that the contention is well founded.
The only ground on which Article 14 has been put
forward by the learned counsel for the respondent is
that the fixation of the cut-off date for payment of the
revised benefits under the two notifications concerned
was arbitrary and it resulted in denying arrears of
payments to certain sections of the employees. This
argument is no longer res integra. It has been held in a
catena of judgments that fixing of a cut-off date for
granting of benefits is well within the powers of the
Government as long as the reasons therefor are not
arbitrary and are based on some rational consideration.”
15. From the discussion of the case of the parties made herein above it is
clear that the new pension scheme has come into force w.e.f. 1.1.2004 upon
a conscious decision of the employers i.e Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on
approval of the Government of India in the year 2008. The petitioner has not
been able to show any grounds for treating the said cut of date as arbitrary,
unreasonable and irrational or in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. The mere fact that other institutions had been governed by different
pensionary schemes since earlier point of time will not entitle the petitioner to
claim that the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti is legally obliged to follow the same
as it is an autonomous body, admittedly framed under the Societies
Registration Act. As such even the employees in service prior to 1.1.2004
have been granted benefits to switch over to the new scheme as per the
9
provisions of the scheme. Sympathies have no place in a society governed by
the Rule of law as been eminently observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
para 31 the judgment delivered in the case of Sudhir Kumar Consul Vrs.
Allahabad Bank (Supra) which is as follows:-
“31. We have sympathies for the appellant
but, in a society governed by the rule of law,
sympathies cannot override the Rules and Regulations.
We may recall the observations made by this Court
while considering the issue of compassionate
appointment in public service”.
16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the factual
position discussed above, we are of the considered view that the writ
petitioner has failed to make out a case for issuance of any direction or
mandamus upon the respondents in the manner prayed by him in para 1 of
the writ petition.
17. The writ petition is without any merit and accordingly, dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Prakash Tatia, C.J.)
(Prakash Tatia, C.J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
The 2nd day of March, , 2012
A. Mohanty