Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, five individuals, filed a writ petition challenging the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 3rd October 2013 in Original Application No. 352/2012, and the subsequent rejection of their review petition on 12th August 2014. The petitioners had sought ante-dating of their appointments as Postal Assistants in the Navi Mumbai Division of the Postal Department either from 1st November 2000 or alternatively from 17th October 2002, to avail the benefit of the old pension scheme. The brief facts are that the respondent-Postal Department sent a requisition to the Employment Exchange for filling posts of Postal Assistant. The petitioners were sponsored, participated in the selection process, were provisionally selected, and issued offers of appointment by letter dated 10th January 1997 directing them to join within 15 days. They underwent training at the respondents' cost. However, on 22nd January 1997, the respondents revised the merit list due to alleged irregularities in evaluation of marks in the aptitude test, deleting the petitioners' names from the merit list. They were kept attached as Short Duty Assistants and their names were maintained on a waiting list. The petitioners made representations for regular appointments. The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, holding that the petitioners were not entitled to ante-dating. The High Court, in its judgment, upheld the Tribunal's decision, reasoning that the petitioners could not claim appointment from a date prior to their actual appointment as they were not appointed against vacancies existing at those times. The court noted that the petitioners were appointed later from the waiting list and their appointments could not be ante-dated merely to grant pension benefits. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Ante-dating of Appointment - Pension Scheme - Petitioners sought ante-dating of appointments to avail old pension scheme - Tribunal dismissed Original Application - High Court held that petitioners cannot claim appointment from a date prior to their actual appointment as they were not appointed against vacancies existing at those times - Held that appointment cannot be ante-dated merely to grant pension benefits (Paras 1-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to ante-dating of their appointments either from 1st November 2000 or 17th October 2002 to avail the benefit of the old pension scheme.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the rejection of the review petition.
Law Points
- Ante-dating of appointment
- Pension scheme
- Appointment from waiting list
- Date of appointment
- Regularisation
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (01) 192
WRIT PETITION NO. 1513 OF 2016
S.V. Gangapurwal, Acting C.J., Sandeep V. Marne, J.
Mr. Vinod Tayade for petitioners, Ms. Neeta Masurkar a/w. Mr. D.A. Dube for respondents
Ms. Vaishali Ravindra Joshi (Maiden name) alias Mrs. Vaishali Sanjay Joshi, Shri. Santosh Atmaram Lohar alias Shri. Santosh Atmaram Jadhav, Shri. Dhananjay Keshavrao Ingole, Shri. Ganesh Khalapabhai Patel, Smt. Jashree Waman Joshi (maiden name) alias Supriya Sachin Malshe
Union of India, through Director General, The Chief Post Master General, Superintendent of Post Offices
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the Original Application seeking ante-dating of appointments.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought ante-dating of their appointments either from 1st November 2000 or alternatively from 17th October 2002 to avail the benefit of the old pension scheme.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were initially selected and offered appointment in 1997, but their names were later deleted from the merit list due to alleged irregularities; they were kept on waiting list and later appointed; they sought ante-dating to get old pension benefits.
Previous Decisions
Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed Original Application No. 352/2012 on 3rd October 2013 and rejected Review Petition on 12th August 2014.
Issues
Whether the petitioners are entitled to ante-dating of their appointments to avail the benefit of the old pension scheme.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they were initially selected and offered appointment in 1997, underwent training, and were later kept on waiting list; they should be given appointment from the date of initial selection or from 2000/2002 to get old pension benefits.
Respondents argued that the petitioners were not appointed against vacancies existing at those times and their appointments were made later from the waiting list; they are not entitled to ante-dating.
Ratio Decidendi
A person cannot claim appointment from a date prior to their actual appointment if they were not appointed against vacancies existing at that time; appointment cannot be ante-dated merely to grant pension benefits.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition, petitioners assail judgment and order dated 3rd October, 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in Original Application No. 352/2012, so also order dated 12th August, 2014 rejecting the Review Petition.
Petitioners had instituted Original Application No. 352/2012 for ante-dating their appointments either w.e.f. 1st November, 2000 or alternatively w.e.f. 17th October, 2002 so as to avail the benefit of old pension scheme.
Procedural History
Petitioners filed Original Application No. 352/2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking ante-dating of appointments. The Tribunal dismissed the OA on 3rd October 2013. Petitioners filed a Review Petition which was rejected on 12th August 2014. Thereafter, they filed the present Writ Petition No. 1513 of 2016 before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 30th January 2023.
