Chandra Shekhar and Ors v. Union of India and Ors

ORDER

11.09.2017 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. ./■ /<■ . ■ ■ X / / ■yt X • .y/ lO For detailed order see W.P. (C) No. 6525/2016, VRamana Murthy & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., pronounced today. SANJIV KHANNA, J SEPTEMBER 11,2017 NA NAVIN CHAWLA, J V UTv ne: IN THE HIGH c|)URT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.jC) 6525/201 RAMANA MURTHY & 0 iird ^lON OF INDIA &; QRS T w.p.rc Tji versus Reserved on: 27^July, ^017 Date of Decision;)! September, 2017 R.S ugh: Ms.Garima Sachdeva, Adv. ro igh: Ms.Abha Malhotra, Adv. 10,141/201 Respondents C1 / AVELDER GOP A RAJ^ J ORS Th ve: roiigh: Ms.Garima Sachdeva, Adv" '•sui ION OF INDIA & ORS Th ough; Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, CGSCR W.P.fC) 5904/2017 UNI versus ON OF INDIA & ORS Throug i Mr. Yin CFIA 'RAJ KUMAR SFIARMA ^ ORS ThJou^h: Mr Petitioners espondents .Kumar Rajesh Singh, Respondents F Mr.Vikram Jetley, CGSC, UOI with 3d Kumar, Dy. Comdt., BSF W^RQ_6585mi6 ndra shekhar ane Thro ORS " J Petitioners ugh: Ms.Garima Sachdeva, Adv iVersr WP(C) I >525/20]6+connccti;d mmatters UNION OF INDIA AND OR^ % SAn T A Mr.G.Tushar Rao, MnMafS Shlrma, M.rC) 3966/2017 NTOSFI KUMAR SING] I

Til - P vel UNION OF INDIA AND 01 :S Reserved on: 28"^ July, 2017 Rate of Decision; Aamust, 2017 AND ORS p",,. •oukh: Ms. Garima Sachdeva, Advocatr sus CO^M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S ANJIV KHANNa ■hoUle MR. JUSTICE M^JIVKHANNa, t are b

¶2Thiouih: Ms. Suman Chouhan. AdvSfwift Mr. Jivesh Ti-wari, Advocate In view of similarity of the 'ing disposed of by this cim The petitioners, V Ram ^ CT/B'elcler Gopa Ram & Ors issue involved in these writ petitions, they lion judgment. anh Murtliy & Ors in W.P. (C) €525l2m, W.P. (C) 10141/2016, Neeraj Kumar in c/ n ^ lyeercij i^iintcir Sharma & Qrs in W P /Cl SJOa/omv n I , ^ 5^4/2017, were appointed and had joined as Constable (General Duty) in • - St I ^'^1 Seeurity Force (BSF) after r anuab, 2004 and hence. Were not covered under the Central Civi, Services (Pensibn) Rules, 1972 IhereinTR-Pr r j , y/z. (^neremaltei leferred to as the "niri v>^ ■ S^1^prrlr.''^ T ^ J , i ds me Old Pension Pen ■ ■ 1'^®" covered by the new Contributory the New Pension Scheme") WP(C) 6525/2016+connected matters i Page 2 ofl6

¶4\> Ors. Vs. Union of India and I 2 of the aforesaid PensM^ ^Jply the govenanent ervants appointed o" or before SI^' December, The petitioners pleaJ discrimination and violation .of Article 14 of the onstltution on the crmnrtr^ fl 4. • , r g aH that in the recruitment held for Punjab and anjj had joined beforeise'ilerblrMOa' offhe Old Pension Scheme. In W.P. (C) No, 3956/2017, Santosh Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. Union iia and Ors., and W.R (C) Nq 6585/901 n I / 1NO.O585/2016, Chandra Shekhar & Qrs. ci-ntiofi T I ' grounds of challenge differ ightly. In Santosh Kumar Singh Ors the nptf u ^ • . ors., the petitioners-51 in number- ^^1^ participated and.were se ected as Sub-Inspectors pursuant to the Central 4-—- ,fi: h-Board. The Review Medical pphed for a review by the Review Medical m t'^tlared them 'fit' and thereafter AlTiicTr' Po,.. ,11""- T- """• - -Ml-" roiice horce. The petitioners - in ^^•P Ors. . (C) 6585/2016 Chandra Shekhar tfe the • • " ■" also participated in Ce t il P ruitment for the post of Sub-Inspector in c nj, Pohce Organization held on 7" September, 2003. ft is assLd that the ufper age limit prescribed was to be seen as on R' a as on 1 August, 2003. The WP(C) 6 525/2016+connected matter! Pages of 16 P titioners in this casp, upL iualifying .he written exantination conducted by the Staff Seieetion Co|ntission. were asked to appear for the Physical EiFiciency Test, medical eji am declared-on 22-28 May, 2004 the Border Security Ijoree. counter affidavit in the wri which has been also read in and others. The petitioners in a

¶6, _ I petitions primarily rely upon the n is.on Bench decisions of thi Court in W.P. (C) No. 5400/2010, Avinash 26 May, 2011, W.P. (C) No.3827/2012, Ors. dated 2"'' November, 2012, WP (C) Na 3834/2013, Ks. Union of Mia & Ors. 12 February, 2015, and W.P. Sinoh Vs. UOI & Orh., dated Naveen Kumar Jha Vs. UOI K

(C) No Ors. in t Sinvlt & Ors. Vs. UOI & decinon of the High Court respondent no. 2, namely, the Di had :ssued the office order da :ed :ondition that they would no ivas notwithstanding Rule 2 above, states that the old servants appointed on or before i fT ination, and interview. The final results were and the 192 petitioners were selected to join We may note that the respondents have filed : Pftition filed by Chandra Shelchar and others, the writ petition filed by Santosh Kumar Singh .2810/2016, Inspector Rajendra ^ dated 27"^ March, 2017. Pursuant to the le case of Parmanand Yadav (supra), the ector General of the Border Security Force 2016, aclmowledging that the mattir had been examined in dejail and after inler-Ministeriai consultation, .t hah been decided to impieUekt the order of the High Court to extend ene. it of the Old Pension Scheme to ail similarly situated Sub-Inspectors selecl'"'^ ^ J the ci This .1 -e t rough Central Police Organizations Examination, 2002,'subject to ; be entitled to back wages and seniority, WP(C) 6525/2016+connected matters of the Pension Rules which, as noticed pension scheme would apply to government December, 2003. entral Police Forced, wei-e subjected to review rnedica October, 2004. On 2 'Ctitioners thcrGin were iijd i ! High ^discrimination and decisions of the Delhi would?r ' «d plea we he rat,o declared m the said cases. In Annas!. Sing!, (supra) the itmoners, who had appled for the post of Assistant Com a Central Police PomJ As'""'®'Commandant in the declared temporarily medically unfit and were |vaIuation in which they were declared fit on fvemher. 2004, which is 18 days after the aJ , , , f«. eandidates who were J-d ftt at the first insLie Joined the Indo-Tihetan Border Poliel! Aesistan. Commandants. fJerJ was po explanation as to why the candidates P were declared medically fit on M-Qctober, 2014 could not be issued appointment letters till 2""'hovimber 2004 Th-tp mvsferv and • a [ n a y y remained unexplained. Tie petitioner therein was issued appointment letter on| 8-Ajgust,, 2O0S, he. after nearly 10 T InllZ7'VT Y CommandZ in as inn™ tl 'h-in was treated TairLrrr ^ appa-ent for tb' T"" " ' was mi no r '«ve c [ " ° was ignored and given a go-bye and ^0 ''"®"<=''®matances over which the petitioner had no control ie being .1!" 177"' - —1.» mosel lower down in the m-Ht Uct ; ^.n ( _ . ' t)®en declared meditally fit in the first-instJncJ. I" this context, the Court held ttatie m issue of appointment letters as Assistant Commandants was not the WP(C) ( '525/2016+'connected matters rejult of anything created by inc.ifference and negligence that the petitioner but was a result of a supine on part of the authorities. Thus, it was directed he seniority of the entiie batch would be on the basis of merit position m the Select List irrespeetive of the date of joining. Direction was also .ssued to constitute a Revi w Departmental Promotion Committ.ee for the post of Deputy Cornmankant. The facts of the case are' squarely .sjnguishable. I, was a se,Jior|ty dispute, and the injustice of treating the petitioner higher in the merit lisjt as a junior to those lower in the merit list was .ruck down. Fixing of en ority on the basis of date of joining, when' were intervening foituitois circumstances and faults on part of the authorities was m violation of and impinging Article 14 of the Constitution.

¶8In the ease of NaveW Kumar Jha (supra), the petitioner had participated in the SCC Coiibiiied Graduate Level Examination-2000 for selejtion to the post of Sub-lJspeetor in Central Para Militaiy Forces. After aviiig cleared the written eximiliatiott and the Physical Efficiency Test, he was Jeclared unfit in the medictl examination, conducted on 4"' February. 2002 The petitioner on Zd'" pibruaiy. 2002 had filed an appeal for being re-examined by the Review Medical nearly one year on 18"' January, Others, who were declared med Board, but the examination was held after 2003 and he was thereupon declared fit. icklly fit at the first instance, had joined the respejtive paramilitaDi forces in llfarch. 2003. However, the petitioner was appoijted as a Sub-Inspector in the CRPF only in April, 2004 and was treated as a member of the Nev, Pension Scheme. Refemng to the decision ri/7c/i \ in Avinash Singh (supra) aiid 10028/2009, Amrenclra Kumar I held entitled to benefit of the 01 WP(C) 6: 25/2016+connected mattei's an earlier decision in W.P. (C) No. Rj. UOI & Ors., the petitioner therein was d Pjension Scheme.

¶9siiT Jhc In the case oiParmanand Yadav (supra), the position was somewhat liar and the decision in tlie iaid case makes reference, to Naveen Kumar pur the resLi CIS Ho'vi'i mo was with were nt e su])ra). The petitioners therein had applied nuant to the advertiteme|t jjublished in Employment News in 2002 for post of Sub-Inspectors- :n the four Central Paramilitao-Forces. The Its were declared on 28-July, 2003 and letters offering appointment in , CRPF and Indo-Tibetrn Ilorder Police were issued in October, 2003. and Avinash Singh h para: were the they Cons issued seiectgi entitle! Decer

¶10is som Centri Howe a Old T m ine WP(C) 6 ver, in the case of-BSF, tl I of December, 2003. Due after January, 2004. ccordingly issued that .e letters of appointment were issued in the .0 this delay, the date of joining in the BSF Ths New Pension Scheme was implemented effect from 1» January 2^04. Consequently, the petitioner therein denied benefit of the Old Pension Scheme as they had joined BSF, but othejs who had appeared in thl same examination and had joined o'ther ii^ilitary forces, were covtiec: under the old pension scheme. Directions tie ])etitioners therein must be given benefit of Pension Scheme, which was in vogue till 3V' December, 2003, and as members of the New Pension Scheme. order dated 13^'' Janiar> :d through Central Polled he position in the case Df ewhat-similar. The petitione Police Organizations E 25/2016+connected matters ust not be treatled quently, the respondenti ujlon consideration, as noticed above, have , 2016, stating that the Sub-Inspectors Organizations Examination, 2002 would be :d to benefit of the Old I ension Scheme, which was in vogue till 3H' iber, 2003. i 'nspector Rajendra Singh & Ors. (supra) rs therein had applied and appeared in the xahiination, 2002 for the post of Inspector. r, they-were declarec njiedically unfit, but were subsequently Page 7 of]6 regai'd to the circumstances o noticed that the petitioners and knovm that by opting for the s of th said

¶11Raje rejec ection raised by the respondents in Inspector was delay and laches. The contention was scfimination. Noticeably, we may record that the authorities had in |the earlier cases, of Naveen Kumar Jha and Parmanand Yadav (supr,a) not taken the plea of delay and laches. In these owing the ratio in Inspector Rajendra Singh he respondents to take the said plea in the circumstances, we should, fol and Ors. (supra), not allow present writ petition. A word of caution-on the question of delay and laches Scheme is contributory, as the Government is recjuired. The new Pension also even The e WP(C) declared fit on medical examination by the Review Medical Board. Having the case, it was held to be grossly unfair and benefit of the Old |Pens :orce. I One contention and obj ndra Singh and Ors. (sujira) ;ed, because of parlous d: arbitrary to deny the petitioners benefit of the Old Pension Scheme because of fortuitous circumstances wiich were beyond their control. There was an more.mate delay in holding ol the review medical examination. It was also ithers had opted for the BSF. If they had paramilitary force they would be deprived Scheme, they might not have opted for the aid on :ontributes to the pension fund which is maintained by a third party. Belated challenges, and claims after a decade would result h immense prejudice for the positions have changed, and restitution jwould n( and impermissible under "the i which does not specify or fix e ten Government to retrieve their con 5525/2016-t-connected matters to jbe covered under the Old Pension Scheme )t be possible. This would be contrary to, ns of the statutory new pension scheme, stipulated return. It may be important for the ribution under the New Pension Scheme, mployees who are also covered under the New Pension Scheme would

¶12On studied examination

¶13Ceritral Police Organizatiorjis diffi;rent footing. None of the examination were issucjl appointment letters or had joined on or before 31 December, 2003. The fact th hr or give them any righi condition or stipulation tr or before 31'' DecembeJ:, 20( con the at tjhe examination was held in 2003 would no miqlitous. The criteria fixing do hot hold so. This is not cont Ors. 31" 200; wp(c; A ha\ e to abide by the terms thereof. The retracing of steps or turning back the clopk may not be possible. we feel the petitioners in the present writ pettions are not entitjed to saceeed and the writ petitions have to be dismissed, for in the present case there is no discrimination or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The cases relating to selection to the post of Sub-Inspector vide examination, 2003 stand altogether on a candidates who were successful in the said St t 'he cut-off date of 31" December, 2003 and eating.government servants who had joined on. 3 £,s a separate class is not discriminatory and the date of joining and not the date of advertisement or written examination cannot be faulted as discriminatory or inequitable and, therefore, contrary to Article 14. The relied upon judgments their ratio, finding and direction. A similar ed by this Court in Shailender Kumar & igli Registrar General & Am., 189 (2012) mtion was raised and rejec Vs. Delhi High Court thro DLl 524. The petitioners therein were issued appointment letters prior to December, 2003, but the actual date of joining was post 31" December, . The contention was rej "2. The main ccintenlion of the petitioners is that the offer of. appointment having be inability to join the pos 6525/2016+connected matters cted, inter alia, holding as under:- en jmade to them prior to 1.1.2004 and their t by 31.12.2003 not being attributable to any t applying a new pension after promulgation , of Government to decide, in its wisdom, as to whether it wanted to apply the new pension scheme to those who had entered service on or after

1.1.2004 or to-those posts of LDC in DistHct promulgated by the Gov lapse on their part, the benefit of CGS (Pension) Rules, cannot be denied to theni....Tie Government was well within its right to discontinue the app icability of CGS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and scheme to those who were to join the service the new pension scheme. It was for the v^ho were offered appointment on or after

1.1.2004. The i Government having decided to discontinue the applicability of GGS (Pdnsion) Rules and to extend the new pension scheme to all those who were to join service on or after 1.1.2004, irrespective of the date on which offer of appointment was made to them, the petitioners do not have any legal right to claim applicability of GGS (Pension) Rules, 1972 to them. It is not as if the new pension scheme.has beenJntrc duced after the petitioners had joined service of the Government. Th; petitioners were not in the service of the Government prior to i. 1.2004 and, therefore, they had no right to the Sessions Gourt, when the new scheme was srnment. Thus, this is not a case of service condition of the employees being varied by-the Government to their detriment. Even| if the petitioners could not join the sendee on or before 31.12.2003 on account of no fault on their part that would make no difference since: the relevant .date is the date of joining the service and not the cate on which the employment was offered to them. If we accept the coiitentioh'that the offer of appointment having been made to the petitioners prior to 1.1.2004, they are entitled to be governed by GGS (Pension) Rules, that would be contrary to the terms of the scheme fraihed by the .Government. We must take note of the fact that their necessarily has to be some time lag between the making of offer jfor appointment and the selected candidate joining the service of the Gevernment because medical examination and police verification must necessarily precede the joining of service by him If the medical exaitination of some persons who are offered employment along with police verification was done before the medical examination and/or police verificatioli of Ihe were able to join| serv: ce account accrues to the WP((!) 6525/2016+connected matters he petitioners was conducted and/or their petitioners and consequently, those persons on or before 31.12.2003 no benefit on that petitioners since completion of medical examination and poIic(j v including the place wh dfication depends upon a lot of factors ere the candidate is residing, the hospital in which he is to be medievally examined, the date fixed by that hospital for medical examination, j the time taken by the concerned police 3f the antecedents etc. If a person is offered official in verification W employment say in las benefit of CCS (Pension) required for his medickl therefore, it will not bi p' Government on or befoi^e 3 xxxx

¶5However, in the case Court restraining the re eek of December, 2003, he cannot claim Rules because some time is necessarily ixamination and police verification and, )ssible for him to join the service of the

1.12.2003. bejfore us, there was no order passed by any .cbpondents from making appointments to the post of LDC in District & Sessions Court. They were in a position to join seiwice soom aftir verification was complke Jr I their medical examination and police On the other hand, in the case of Dr. ' vnivx iictHLij HI LJLiC UctuL' Ux JL/I* Pawan Kumar N. Mali (supra), relief was granted to the petitioners. primarily applying the Drinciple that the order of the Court ca prejudice anyone. Had nnot th^re been no stay order in that case, the would have joined service prior to them, even their medical the cut-off date of Ol.C service, only because of hand, none of the peti verification in respect o respondents in that ckse

01.01.2004, since not only the-offer of appointment had been made to examination-had been conducted well before ,1.^004. They-were prevented from joining stay order granted by the Court. On the other :ioners before this Court could have been allowed to join service prior to 01.01.2004 since the character

31.12.2003. This judgment. all the three petitioners was received after before us. therefore, cannot be applied to the case

¶6This is not the case ol or before 31.12.2003 was the part of the respond^ service on or before 31. ] or to any order passed by taken by the Hospftal/Police in conducting medical examination and police verification, Hhe petitioners in the case ol n the petitioners that their inability to join on s attributable to any negligence or lapse on mts. If inability of the petitioners to join .^003 is not attributable to the respondents a Court and was only on account of the time petitioners cannot claim parity with the f Dr. Pawan Kumar N. Mali (supra). For the WP(C) 6 >25/2016+connected matters Page 1 1 of 16

¶14Vs. oftl An identical vievy has 'Vori/t Delhi Municipal

(DB), wherein reference e said judgment, it has be reasons given in the jirei writ petition and the same c "18. We are not jnclhed Administrative Tribunk,

28.06.2013 in OA No eding paragraphs, we find no merit in the is hereby dismissed." bedn taken in Sanjay Kumar Tltakur & Ors. Corporation of Delhi & Ors., 236 (2017) DLT was made to other case laws. In paragraph 18 en held: to .accept the reasoning of the Central Emakulam Bench in the decision dated • 224/2012, P. Rajesh Kumar v. The Union of India, which records thM benefit of the old pension scheme would be available to the applicint^ therein for the reason that the vacancies period prior to N'January, 2004.. The " .f nadceptable in view of the prescribed cut-off date of 1.1.2004, with rfefejence to the date of Joining and not the date of vacancies. The afordsaid criterion, , i.e. the date of joining, is not ar ... Jg salutaiy and good reason. Courts but c Ibgi: annot substitute the said driterion with another criterion as has been done by the Tribunal in thd case of P. Rajesh Kumar (supra), wherein the date of vacancy, it has been observed, would be the fair and just criterion. This is irhpermissible and eannot be accepted. The courts or lit "I o 1-1 .-X .... 1 . J "f * •€ -• .. judicial forums cannot ilat that the courts do hot of discretion and' within Legislature. The power] to pensionary benefits, a e and substitute dates. It is well-settled ir.terfere with cut-off date as these are matters the domain of the Executive or the specify a date from which terminal or . the .case may be, shall take effect is concomitant of the power of the State or Corporation to change the conditions of service unilaterally. So long as the date specified is reasonable and not-wa5ward with reference to the requirement of fixing a point of time et:., ho interference by the Court is called for. (SQe State of West Bengal v. Ratan Behari Dey (1993) 4 SCC 62). When classification is permissible, choice of date being a basis of classification, the date so fiked cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reajon is forthcoming for the choice unless it is shown to be capripious When a line or point if I WP(C) 6525/2016+connected matters or] whimsical in the given circumstances, to be fixed and there is no mathematical formula or logical way Legislature or its delega the date or point so (See Union of India v. 305 and A. Manjula Bhc Ltd. (2009) 8 see'431). is made, the same has to is otherwise permissible is open to scrutiny • or 15: Othei"; & 0 cont eons and en WP(C) Supp see 432). Further, it law that the name of a c to fix the same precisely, the decision of the te ijnust be accepted unless it can be said that fix Pa 'shi w: be an d is widely off the reasonable mark. mmeswamn Matchworks (1975) 1 See niv.A.P. Women's Coop Finance Corpn. lenever a law is enacted or an amendment with effect from a particular date. When it 1 legitimate to fix a date, the date so fixed the limited grounds of whimsicality and capriciousness. If the cljioic:e made is burdensome to those to whom the wrong done is sought toj be rectified, it would be open to the Court to examine the choice of date and find out whether it has resulted in any discriminatiori. (See A Prabhakar Rao y. State of A,P.,\9%5 is a well-settled and accepted principle of andidate appearing on a select list would not give him an indefeasibld right to appointment and it would be open to the Government to not fill lap the vacancies. The Government cannot be compelled to fill up vacancies where the decision not to do so is sound and rational, especially in .the case of direct recruits. (See Neelima Shangla v Manuv. f/O/(2013) 12 vac Punjab (2016) 6 SCO 5^2) gap between the date of occasions, appointments a long delay." j ■When we turn to the v •s, Neeraj Kumar Sharma ijhers it is noticed that th tion that some cjther able (GD) in the BST pr i Haryana in October/No appointment letters were issu' of V. Ramana Murthy & Othe: 6525/2016+connected matters State ofHaryana (1986) 4 SCO 268), Manoj SCO 111, Kulwinder Pal Singh y. State of . Thus, we would hold that there can be a ancy, selection and appointment. On some mdy not,be made at all or may be made after /rit petitions filed by V. Ramana Murthy & & Others, and Constable Welder Gopa Ram ! plea of discrimination is predicated on the candidates were selected for the post of rsuant to the recruitment rally held in Punjab verhber, 2003 and in the said cases, the td ip December, 2003. However, in the case s, advertisement for the Recruitment rally for appo and Thereafter, Recruitment rally the State of Andhra Pradesh, Kariataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Lakshadweep ondicherry States/Union Territoiy was published in August, 2003. was held in Bangalore in October, 2003 and ntment letters were [issued on or after 1'^ January, 2004. In the case of Others, advertisement was published in & 10 ^ October, 2003. After the selection process, appointment letters \^erb issued in February/March, 2004. In the case of Constable Neeraj I advei tisement published 'in Se luijiar Sharma & Others pursuant to the ptember, 2003, recruitment rally was held in October/November, 2003 at C^hhiwla, Najafgarh Road, Delhi. Thereafter, call letters were issued in Deceriber, 2003 and candidates were asked to appear before the Commandant cn 5"^ and lO"' January, 2004. The date of joinir g was subsequent ,fo I denied benefit of the Old Pensi

¶16not t Selection process does take le case of the petitioners WP(C) Constable Welder Gopai Rair Augist/September, 2003 for [recruitment rallies to be held at SHQ, BSF Camjjus, Bikaner, Rajasthan on January, 2004. Thus, the petitioners were on Scheme. time for varied and different reasons. It is hat there was a deliberate delay in the selection process. There!could hi a variety of administrative and logistical reasons or causes for the time taken to complete the selection process and J vhibh we do not find is per se inordinate and 14 years, it would be impossible and unfair to give cogent explanation as to the reason apnointment letters took the time that it did. silent during the intervening period and had ;hat they would be governed by the New, sparate advertisements, each initiating a issue the appointment letters, prolonged. Today after nearly ask the. respondents to offer and why the selection and issue of The f etitioners have remained apparently accepted the position Pension Scheme. There wer )525/2016+connecled matters separite selection process. Exped of candidates subsequent to Haryana cannot be a ground _7£ .tious and early selection and appointment pe viola;ion of parity. On being accepted and admitted that the the seniority of those selected Punjab and Haryana. The dal an e d determine inter se seniority. The is not the criterion. This being the recruitment rally held in Punjab and to urge that there was discrimination and asked, counsel for the petitioners have itioners have not challenged or questioned d appointed in the recruitment rally held in appl wou d not apply. In the said candidates, i.e. same selectior f joining, as per Rules, is the criterion to late of initiation of the recruitment process the position, the ratio in Sanjay Kumar Thaicur & Ors. (supraj and Shailendra Kumar & Ors. (supra) would be cable. The other set' of decisions, which have been distinguished above, cases some officers from the same batch of prDcess had joined before 31.12.2003, but the petfioner" for fortuitous reasons had joined later. Thus some candidates from the same selection prc cejs were .given benefit of the Old Pension Sch(;me, but other candidates who could, not-join earlier for no fault of and were treated as members of the New position in the present case, abundant caution, we would observe and selected candidates belonging to the same thei •s, were denied the benefit Pension Scheme. This is not However, as a matter clarify that in case any of the the of selection batch have been gri the the petitioners have been deaie i, the petitioners would be entitled to raise said claim before the authDrities and, if denied the said benefit, can approach the appropriate forum for relief. The aforesaid observations would confer any right on the petitioners who are not being discriminated, in sense that they have been denied the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme, not the ntdd benefit of the Old Pension Scheme, which WP(C) 6525/2016+connected matters Page 15 of 16 n whe: i.e. COVi

¶18■eas others appointed and oursuant to the same ad ered under the old pension With the aforesaid ob dismissed without any order as tc se serr sc. Sept NA/5s WP(C) lected through the same selection process, •verdsement and recruitment rally, have been leme. ations and caveat, the writ petitions are M*- :mber// , 2017 sn 5525/2016+connected matters costs. ' ' {1 ^ (SANJIVKHANNA) JUDGE rf (NAVIN CHAWLA) JUDGE

$— * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 10141/201^ Reserved on: 27^ July,-2017 CT/WELDER GOPA RAM &ORS Petitioners . Through: Ms.Garima Sachdeva, Adv. Versus UNION OF INDIA &ORS Respondents Through: Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC W.P.(C1 5904/2017 NEERAJ KUMAR SHARMA&ORS Petitioners Through: Mr.Kumar Rajesh Singh, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA &ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Vikram Jetley, CGSC, UOI with Mr.Vinod Kumar, Dy. Comdt., BSF W.P.rC1 6585/201 CHANDRA SHEKHAR AND ORS ....Petitioners Through: Ms.Garima Sachdeva, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mi\G.Tushar Rao, Mr.Mayank Sharma Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA