Srinagar: In a major relief to scores of policemen recruited in 2009 but thrown out of the arch of pension for having been issued formal appointment orders in 2010, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has directed the Home Department to govern the service conditions of these personnel under the relevant Pension Rules as were in vogue in 2009.
The Tribunal members comprising Harvinder Kaur Oberoi and Dr Chhabilendra Roul held that the applicant cops “cannot be discriminated against their counterparts who could join prior to 01.01.2010”.
Six thousand cops were appointed during the cumbersome process of selection by the then State’s Home department.
The grievance raised by cops was that though the recruitment process took place in 2009 and they were selected and appointed by or before 31.12.2009, they were thrown out of the post-retirement pension scheme as applied for persons recruited in government service from 2010.
The cops petitioned before the CAT that the respondent authorities issued their formal joining appointment orders after 31.12.2009. This delay caused them great prejudice as it made them ineligible for the Old Pension Scheme and now they are being governed by SRO 400 dated 24.12.2009, which is not applicable to them, they said.
The CAT held “since the applicants are not at fault for the delay in formal joining, hold that since the applicants are not at fault for their delay in formal joining, they cannot be discriminated against vis-à-vis their counterparts who could join prior to 01.01.2010”.
It directed the Union Territory’s Commissioner-Secretary Home Department, Director General of Police, Inspector General of Police, Deputy Inspector General IRP, and many other top officers of the department to govern the service conditions of the applicants under the relevant Pension Rules in vogue in 2009”.
Necessary orders in this regard shall have to be passed by the respondents within three months.
The aggrieved cops stated that though they are similarly situated to ones who are governed by the un-amended pension rules as the process of selection was one and such other candidates were also selected through the same appointment process.
They said such actions of the respondents are violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
In 2020 the respondents appeared before the Tribunal with a response “the Police/CID verification caused some delay but there has been no delay on the part of appointing authority”, adding that since the recruitment process included selection of 6000 candidates, it was not possible to issue all these appointment orders prior to 31.12.2009.
The Tribunal found force in the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners and decided the matter in their favour.
