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

T.P.MANI's STRUGGLE for FIX WORK HOURS

Ref.:.AINVSA/CEC/2012/05                                                                      Date:  20/01/2012

To

The All CEC, REC ,SEC Members & Unit Secretary,

Dear friends,

The working conditions of the teaching staff in JNVs have been rigorous over the years. The staff have been working between 5 am to 10 30 pm an all days, put on duties on second Saturday , Sundays and all  Govt holidays .

The issue was brought to the notice to our JC (Admn.), NVS, HQ, New Delhi . On one side the official version of NVS under RTI act states that the working hours of teaching staff is from 7.15 am to 1.40 pm and  on the other hand, NVS has remained a mute spectator to the additional duties given by the Principals of every JNVs to its staff beyond the specified duty hours.

            It is high time , we approach the Court and  file a case regarding the matter. Hence it is requested that the following information may be sent immediately..

i)        Duty chart including early morning Duty, Night duty, MOD duty,  A/N & Evening supervised  study  duties, Sunday duties, Holiday duties  and any other duties.

ii)      Any Memorandum / advisory note received by any staff in respect of the non-compliance to the above duty schedule.

This may be considered as an urgent matter & hence the documents mentioned above may be sent at the earliest. The documents should be sent to Shri.J.K.Singh,General Secretary,AINVSA                                                                                                                                                                                                          JNV Katiahar,  Bihar.Ph.No:    0943163 4620

Thanking you

                                                                                                                     Yours faithfully

 

(J K Singh)

National General Secretary,

(TP MANI)

National President,

AINVSA, CEC

News for PRINCIPALS & VICE PRINCIPALS

NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITI To Shri L.B. Reddy, General Secretary, All India Navodaya Vidyalaya Staff Association, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mamnoor -Post, Distt. Warangal Andhra Pradesh-506 166. 27/12/2011 Sub: Proposal for introducing honorarium to Principals and Vice Principal of NVS. Sir, I am. to refer to your letter No.AINVSA/2011-12/18-1/3, dated 18.10.2011 on the above subject and to invite your attention to this office letter of even number dated 10.05.2011 copy enclosed for ready reference. Yours faithfully, A.C. (Estt.III) Encl: As above NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITI under Ministry of Human Relsource Development, Department of~School Education A-28, Kai~ash Co~ony, New De~hi-ll0 048 Dated: -10.05.2011 To Shri L.B.Reddy, General Secretary All India Navodaya Vidyalaya Staff Association Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Post Mamnoor Distt. Warangal Andra Pradesh-506 166. Sub-: -Proposd -z.or--"introducing honorarium to Prinaipals and Vice Prin?ipal~ of NVS. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No. AINVSA/CEC/ 2009-10/ 16-09/04 dated 14.03.2011, on the above subject and to say that the proposal for payment of honorarium to Principals and Vice Principals of NVS was considered by the Competent Authority, but not agreed to. This has the approval of Commissioner, NVS. Yours faithfully, (D.C. Verma) A.C, (Estt .III)

Good News for Non teaching staff

An Eye-opener from SHAJI DAVIS

Dear friend,

Though our case at Ranchi HC is going to be a milestone the following vital details are missing. So people are groping in darkness:

1	In the Original Affidavit submitted by Sri.P N Misra "that this is an application for issuance of a writ or writs, direction or directions commanding the respondents and adopt and formulate the uniform and consistent pension rule for the entire teaching and Non-teaching staff as pension rules as has been adopted and made applicable to the other educational institutions of the central Government, Human Resource department....."	As such does everyone need to file an affidavit and vakalat?
2.	Sl.No.02 of the Original Affidavit Annexure -I. Gazette Notification dated 31.07.2008 has been rejected as there is no such notification. It is only PIB report. Notification  for implementing NPS is dated 04.08.2009	The petitioner has not responded to this in his rejoinder
3.	The All India Sainik Schools Employees Association in a petition filed in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution has asked for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, primarily, to extend to the employees working in the Sainik Schools, all the service benefits and advantages in the same pattern as being obtained in Kendriya Vidalya Sangthan. The petitioner's contentions are that the Sainik School Society is `State' within the meaning of Article 12 and is accordingly amenable to claim the enforcement of fundamental rights, and further that the society has to be guided by what is provided in Part 4 of the Constitution by way of Directive Principles of State Policy	Our case is Sri.P N Misra v/s Union of India & others NOT AINVSA v/s Union of India & others
4.	In the rejoinder submitted by NVS (through Sri.A K Shukla,DC-Sl.No.5 )that the Govt has approved the introduction of the NPS for all the employees of NVS	The petitioner has not challenged this
5.	In the rejoinder submitted by NVS (through Sri.A K Shukla, DC.Sl.No.7)that the govt has never given any assurance that it would be granting pensionary benefit to the employees of the Samiti under the CCS pension Rules 1972.	The petitioner has not challenged this by stating that as per CCS Pension Rules 1972 CPF is not meant for regular employees.
6.	In the rejoinder submitted by NVS (through Sri.A K Shukla, DC.Sl.No.8)it has been stated that there are many organisations in the country which do not have pension under the CCS Pension Rule.	The petitioner has  not challenged this by stating that 26 other organisations have either given one time switching over option or newly implemented GPF-cum pension scheme. Again the petitioner has failed to challenge by presenting the landmark judgement of the Supreme court. No list attached as annexure.
7	Counter Affidavit filed by NVS through Sri.Alok Verma.Preliminary submission Sl.No.1.Govt of India had approved the introduction of NPS of Govt.of India for all regular employees……	The petitioner has not challenged the matter stating that NPS cannot be implemented in any organisation which does not have GPF-cum-Pesion.Thus it violates pension rule.
8.	Introduction of GPF-cum -Pension	The petitioner is silent on DO letter no.3011/10/81 vide dated 17th July 1995.
9.	Parliamentary Standing Committee Reports	Sl.No04.Annexure 3 series The petitioner presented only the copy of 198 Parliamentary Standing Committee Report and has forgotten 154,168 and 184 Parliamentary Standing Committee reports.
10.	Chaturvedi Committee Report	No Annexure attached.
11.	One time Switch over	No mention in petitotioner’s submission
12.	Dr.Muralimanohar Joshi then HRD Minister strongly recommended	No submission No annexure
13.	Minutes of Meetings held in 2000 Chaired by Secretary(SE&HE) strongly recommended and directed NVS to submit justification for non introduction of GPF-cum-pension	No submission No annexure
14.	There are 103 representations submitted by AINVSA to govt and NVS etc(more are getting retrieved )	Sl.No 05. Annexure 4 series: The petitioner has annexured only 5 representations of AINVSA.
15.	More than 55 documents are there in support of a case	No other documents  annexured  by the Petitioner
16.	50 letters from Govt.Ministers,MPs regarding pension	Nothing is annexured by Petitioner
17	Documents of 5 other court cases and Sainik School case can support the fight for pension.	Nothing is annexured by Petitioner

 

Reg RANCHI COURT CASE by Rajan K M, correspondent, NPF

NAVODAYA PENSION FORUM (NPF)
(A COMMON FORUM OF REGISTERED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATIONS UNDER NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITI, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT,DEPT.OF SCHOOL EDUCATION & LITERACY,GOVT.OF INDIA)

To 24/11/11
Mrs.P S Bara
Principal & Co-ordinator of Ranchi Court Case
JNV Ranchi,Jarkhand

Subject : W.P(s)No.4966 of 2008 - Shri.P N Mishra v/s The Union of India & Others


Respected Madam,

Thank you for sending the Vakalatnama, affidavit and the resolutions of the meeting held at JNV Ranchi.
It is encouraging to learn that the case has been taken up by Supreme Court Advocate Shri Manoharlal Sharma and has seemingly got a momentum at the fag end. However, the following apprehensions still remain in the minds of many:

1. The writ is a personal one( Shri.P N Mishra v/s The Union of India & Others) So will it be beneficial to others who file the vakalatnama ?

2. The one point that is contested in the whole case is the Gazette notification dated 31.07,2008, when there are 100s of contentious points with real razor edges to pin down NVS. However NVS claims that there is no notification dated 31.07.2008 regarding introduction of NPS. Petitioner is referring to PIB dated 31.07.2008. Govt. had never given assurance to grant CCS Pension Rule.( Respondent’s Reply of Ranchi RC). Hence other vital points which are in thefavour of NVSstaff may be projected

3. The legal validity of the case was discussed by NPF members with an eminent advocate & it is learnt that , the above Ranchi HC case covers only staff who are working in the state of Jharkhand & as such ‘Vakalatanama’ from Navodaya staff of other states may not be legally valid. This point mayplease be discussed in detail with your Advocate.


4. The winnability of the case is not gauged any where. Lack of proper arguments is indicative of this missing points. The arguments raised is sometimes not closely connected to this case such as Jt. Commissioner/ Deputy Commissioner not competent being employees/ Jt.Commissioner is not competent to make statement on behalf of Governement. ( Reply of Shri. P N Mishra R/02 22 June 2009) In addition the statement made by Joint commissioner/Deputy commissioner the statement MHRD Government of India may also be sought.

5. The list of organisations such as IGNOU Konkan railways NIOS Inter University Council and other 16 organisations who implemented CCS pension after establishment of NVS is not annexed. (Reply of P N Mishra R/03)

Hence it is my request to your good self to be very cautious in this regard. May propose the following vital steps:
1. Take driver’s seat and steer the course of case properly. Don’t allow the advocate to drive a long journey.

2. Get all remaining documents to buttress the case.

3. We hope we can help you out in this matter in the most effective way.

4. The legal signification of the case, even if it is infavour of Shri. P.N Misra is doubtful as other NVS Staff may still have to fight it out individually these incurring further expenditure. However NPF, the only forum which is authorised to take up the case on behalf of whole NVS staff still feels that this sincere attempt of shr. PN Misra needs to be extended with all moral support and a nominal financial support to that extent which is necessary.
NPF is seriously contemplating to file a strong case in the Supreme Court and is in the process of placing all relevant and necessary document which is in possession of AINVSA and other association since 1994. The winability of the case is very bright and NPF seeks unanimous support of all NVS staff cutting across the cadre and the union affiliations. A detailed letter this regard is shall be sent by NPF shortly.
It is also to note that the expenses required to fight the case has not been mentioned clearly. In the request to send Rs.1000 by each staff it is expected to fetch Rs.1.8core which is a huge sum of money to fight a high court case. The amount may be collected school wise at the rate of Rs.2000 which is reasonable and realistic.

Please let we know of your opinion as it is the case of 17312 staff and their dependents.

Kindly call back: 09497419144 (Rajan K M, correspondent, NPF )

I request all office bearers of Navodaya Pension Forum to get into a unanimous opinion and support the case and save our lives so that I can make official communication.

Pls. send your opinion. This will help us in our future course of action.

(Rajan K M, correspondent, NPF )

SHOULD I REMIT THE AMOUNT for COURT CASE

A MESSAGE circulated in Pune Region by SAJITH NAIR through email on 31 Oct,2011
Dear Friends and Comrades,
A very happy new year to all of you !! A good news to all of you, that once again all the registered associations of NVS have come under one roof to fight for our age old demand of PENSION GOI 1972. Kindly log on to www.ainvsa.blogspot.com to read the minutes of the meeting whereupon you will peruse that all these associations got united and are going to file a court case- a legal suit for this demand. Please write as comments underneath if you have a different opinion or simply contact Shri K.M Rajan or Shri. JK Singh, who are the correspondents for the this Navodaya Pension Forum presently. Write your views boldly if you have any reservations thereon, and get it cleared instead of backbitting or discouraging others thereof. Its heard that a few are collecting amounts in the name of Pension or Stepping up court cases in Gujarat. It is humbly advised once again to all these audacious persons not to get involved in legal trifles by iniatiating such ventures personally or in the name of AINVSA or any forum unless given the task by the office bearers as mentioned in the minutes. Please note that the persons authorised by this forum should only venture for the same, which would be communicated in future. If anyone is remitting any amount to anybody, are doing at their own risk and the so called leaders or person/s accepting such amounts would only be accountable individually for the accounts and tranparency thereof, answerable to the hearings and cross-examinations in the court case as such.
SUCCESS OFTEN COMES TO THOSE WHO DARE AND ACT - Jawaharlal Nehru
IF YOU THINK YOU CAN, YOU CAN....
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
(SAJITH.S.NAIR)
Gen.Sec AINVSA Gujarat Unit

A STRONG REACTION AND A PRAGMATIC SUGGESTION
Mr.Nayar,
I have been watching and also involved in this struggle right from the beginnig. I had already told the way this struggle is going on would yield to zero result.Any way, if some of you want to fight the case in the court and very much hopeful that we will win this case in the Suprme Court, please publish the very opinion of the lawyers you have consulted in writing on the web site under which rule we are entilted for pension. I would also like to suggest , if now you really talk of honesty and transparency, at least obtain minimum assurance from the lawyer that we would win this case. An what is the minimum persentage guarantee? How far the case is strong pointwise? What are the sections and constitutional remedies go in our favour? Is the lawyer really sympathetic to us? If yes, can he/she share our liability? Can he assure that he would charge 50% fee after he wins the case? Simply appealing for money will not do. People have lost all faith in the AINVISA. We have seen many histrionics and rhetorics of our so called leaders.I have seen people changing grounds for their favour and greed.Even then I wish you all success and respect your will to fight for our right.This is my first letter to you an may be the last if you try to write sentimental and emotional letter in reply. I want a legal and mathematical reply on the doubts which I have raised here. This is a letter from a man who knows how to call a spade a spade.
Yours sincerely an truely,
Prasad A K  

Forwarded by Mr Nair to NPF Office bearers and National Correspondents on 6 Nov,2011

Respected Sirs

There is a good suggestion from Sh. A.K Prasad, one of the veterans of Navodaya Vidyalaya and a good comrade in this struggle for Pension GOI. He has been showing good spirit and rationality in this suggestion forwarded herewith. Kindly answer this in a mathematical and logical way to him and oblige... which are in the minds of many, myself included. I have always withheld and restrained myself from collection of any financial help for this matter.. In this case too, kindly depute some honest and reliable person in Gujarat for collection of the fund for this purpose.,if you are accumulating it at State level or fix some strategy at the Vidyalaya level so that only that representative should collect the amount. Fix amount should be decided to be contibuted at the designation level., if this proposal is going to materialise. Prior to all this kindly clear all the doubts of the employees and comrades who have some reservations, or skeptical about the same. The assurity level and the fifty percentage fees disbursement only to the lawyer is appreciable suggestion. We should take suggestions and advice in good spirit, in a positive way. People are not going to contribute generously and magnanimously unless their doubts clarified... I have circulated the minutes in Gujarat and Pune Region. Kindly direct Sh.R.N Tonde, the deputed Gen.Sec of Pune Region to carry on further correspondence and commmunication in Pune Region, including Gujarat for this purpose.
Thanking you
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
(SAJITH.S.NAIR)