Indradeo Prasad v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21078 of 2018 ====================================================== Indradeo Prasad, Son of Late Lildhari Prasad, Resident of Village-Imaliya, P.S.-Dhanarua, District-Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union of India through the Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, Government of India, New Delhi-110002.

2.

The Secretary, Railway Board, Government of India, New Delhi-110002. 3.

The General Manager, East Central Railway, Vaishali-84418. 4.

The Senior Section Engineer (Cand W), East Central Railway, Patna800001. 5.

The Senior Divisional Finance Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur, Patna 801503.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kumar Kaushik, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Shekhar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY) Date : 06-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. In the present application, the challenge has been made that the petitioner has wrongly been granted the benefit

Patna High Court CWJC No.21078 of 2018 dt.06-02-2020 2/3 arising from New Pension Scheme whereas he should have been given the benefit under the old pension scheme as the persons who have been appointed from the same panel has been covered under old pension scheme. It appears that the petitioner was working as Commission Vendor on temporary basis. A panel was prepared for appointment in the Indian Railway and from that panel, the appointment was made including of the present petitioner but he has entered into service on 26.03.2004 whereas the New Pension Scheme has been introduced on 01.01.2004. He continued in service up to 2012 without any demur of coverage in new pension scheme which was very much known to the petitioner. He has submitted that he should be covered by Old Pension Scheme not by New Pension Scheme.

Presently, it has been argued that certain persons junior to him has been granted arising from the Old Pension Scheme, but of without substance. After five years of superannuation, he has raised the grievance that he has wrongly been put to new pension scheme rather he should be covered under the old pension scheme. The petitioner has now challenged the action of authority after superannuation as well as he has raised new points that cannot be accpeted.

3. With this observation, we find no merit in the

Patna High Court CWJC No.21078 of 2018 dt.06-02-2020 3/3 application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Shivaji Pandey, J) ( Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Nasimul/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 12-02-2020 Transmission Date N/A