Case Background
The petitioner was working as a Laboratory Assistant in the Department of Physics at the National Institute of Technology (N.I.T.), Patna.
His service journey began much earlier. Based on an advertisement issued on 21.01.1987 by the Co-ordinator, Transportation Engineering, Bihar College of Engineering (B.C.E.), Patna, he was initially appointed as a Technical Assistant. The appointment letter was issued on 05.03.1987 on a consolidated monthly salary of Rs. 600, and he joined duties on 12.03.1987.
The issue of regularising his service remained pending before Patna University for some time. Meanwhile, by notification dated 28.01.2004, the Government of India converted Bihar College of Engineering, Patna into the National Institute of Technology, Patna.
Before this conversion, the petitioner and 16 similarly situated persons had approached the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 12364 of 2001 seeking regularisation of their services. On 18.04.2008, that writ petition was allowed with directions to N.I.T., Patna to consider the petitioners’ cases for regularisation.
Following this, on 15.05.2008, the 11th meeting of the Board of Governors of N.I.T., Patna was held in Delhi. The Board directed the Registrar, N.I.T. to consider the regularisation of 11 named persons against vacant posts as per their qualifications and advised implementation of the High Court’s order.
Consequently, the petitioner’s services were regularised as Laboratory Assistant, Department of Physics, through office letter no. NITP/214/09 dated 21.12.2009 issued by the Registrar of N.I.T., Patna. Later, by letter no. NITP/237/10 dated 11.01.2010, his pay was fixed under the 6th Central Pay Commission in Pay Band–1 (Rs. 5200–20,200 with Grade Pay Rs. 2,000) with effect from 30.12.2009.
In the meantime, the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Secondary and Higher Education, Government of India, had introduced a new pension scheme based on defined contribution in lieu of the earlier GPF-cum-Pension Scheme.
This new scheme, popularly called the National Pension Scheme (NPS), was applicable to “new entrants” recruited in Central Government service on or after 01.01.2004. In line with this, N.I.T., Patna treated the petitioner as a new entrant and placed him under the non-pensionable scheme.
The petitioner eventually retired from service on 31.06.2017. Before retirement, he had submitted a representation dated 31.03.2014 seeking coverage under the old pension scheme, relying on his long association since 1987. That representation was rejected by letter no. NITP/1653/14 dated 27.06.2014 issued by the Director of N.I.T., Patna.
He then approached the Patna High Court by filing the present Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18619 of 2014, challenging the rejection letter and seeking directions to treat him as in pensionable service under the old scheme.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The core dispute before the Patna High Court was limited but crucial for many employees in similar positions: should the petitioner, whose regular appointment in N.I.T., Patna was after 01.01.2004, be treated as an “old employee” entitled to the pre-2004 GPF-cum-Pension Scheme, because he had earlier worked on a different basis since 1987 in the erstwhile Bihar College of Engineering?
The petitioner’s counsel argued that he was not a new appointee of N.I.T., Patna. According to him, his services had been absorbed in N.I.T. with effect from 28.01.2004, when Bihar College of Engineering was converted into N.I.T. Patna. Therefore, his previous service from 1987 onwards should be counted for all purposes, including pension.
It was submitted that he had served initially as a daily-wage or consolidated-pay employee and that such service should be taken into account for putting him into pensionable service. On this basis, he claimed entitlement to benefits under the old pension scheme applicable before 01.01.2004.
To strengthen his case, the petitioner relied on Supreme Court decisions. He cited Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur v. Vibha Shukla (Smt) and Others, reported in (2007) 15 SCC 61, particularly paragraphs 16 and 20. Those passages discuss how appointments must follow statutory recruitment provisions and that regularisation is not a mode of appointment, drawing from the Constitution Bench judgment in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) and later decision in Post Master General v. Tutu Das (Dutta).
He also relied on State of Bihar v. Sheela Devi & Ors., reported in 2013(4) PLJR 557. There, the Supreme Court referred to earlier rulings such as K.T. Veerappa v. State of Karnataka and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam v. Bachan Singh, where work-charged service prior to regularisation was directed to be counted for pensionary benefits and arbitrary exclusion was struck down.
On the strength of these authorities, the petitioner contended that there was no justification to deny him old pension benefits when he had been serving since 1987. He maintained that the respondents had wrongly treated him as freshly recruited and, therefore, requested the Court to direct issuance of pension and retirement benefits under the old scheme.
On the other side, senior counsel for N.I.T., Patna and counsel for the Union of India opposed the writ petition.
They submitted that the petitioner could not claim the status of an “old employee” of N.I.T., Patna. According to them, his regular appointment as Lab Assistant (Physics) was made only pursuant to the High Court’s directions in CWJC No. 12364 of 2001 and the connected contempt petition MJC No. 785 of 2009.
The office order dated 21.12.2009 (Annexure–5) was central to their stand. That order makes it explicit that:
“In compliance of Hon’ble Patna High Court order in CWJC case No. 12364/01 and consequent contempt case in the Hon’ble Patna High Court MJC No. 785 of 2009, Sri Syed Mokhtar Hussain… is appointed as Lab Assistant (Physics) in the regular pay-scale against sanctioned post of Lab Assistant (Physics) vide MHRD, GoI letter No. F.11-1/2006-TS.III dated 17-03-2006 with effect from the date when he will join the institute service.”
The respondents emphasised that the petitioner accepted this appointment order. He did not challenge it either in the contempt proceedings or in the present writ case. Hence, the principle of estoppel applied: having accepted and acted upon the regular appointment as a new entrant, he could not later claim an earlier date or different status for pension purposes.
Further, the respondents pointed out that after the earlier order in CWJC No. 12364 of 2001, N.I.T., Patna had regularised the petitioner’s services on 21.12.2009 from the date of his joining as Laboratory Assistant. This date was later modified by order dated 09.04.2015 (Annexure–13), giving him the benefit of regularisation from 04.12.2008 instead of 30.12.2009.
The Union of India and N.I.T. relied on the Central Government notification dated 05.07.2005 introducing the National Pension Scheme with effect from 01.01.2004. That notification stated that the scheme would apply to “new entrants recruited in the Central Government services on or after 01.01.2004.”
According to them, since the petitioner’s regular appointment in N.I.T., Patna was only in December 2008 (as later amended) and not prior to 01.01.2004, he clearly fell within the category of “new entrants” under the notification. Therefore, he was bound by the National Pension Scheme, not the old GPF-cum-Pension Scheme.
They also highlighted that after he joined N.I.T., the authorities regularly deducted contributions from his salary under the National Pension Scheme. At no point during his service did he object to these deductions or claim coverage under the old scheme.
The Court considered these rival submissions.
Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma noted that it was an admitted position that the petitioner had never challenged the office order dated 21.12.2009 (Annexure–5), which recorded his appointment as Lab Assistant (Physics) in the regular pay scale against a sanctioned post, with effect from his joining date.
Even in the present writ petition, he had chosen not to contest this foundational order. He had only sought quashing of the rejection letter dated 27.06.2014 (Annexure–12) and a direction to place him in pensionable service under the old scheme.
The Court further noted that by order dated 09.04.2015 (Annexure–13), N.I.T. had amended his date of joining to 04.12.2008 in place of 30.12.2009. However, this still remained a date after 01.01.2004, i.e., after introduction of the National Pension Scheme.
Taking these facts together, the Court held that N.I.T. had rightly rejected the petitioner’s claim to be brought under the old pension scheme. Since he had been appointed and regularised in N.I.T., Patna only after the cut-off date, he was to be treated as a “new recruitee” for pension purposes and squarely covered by the National Pension Scheme.
The Court also observed that the petitioner had not objected to NPS deductions from his salary for years, which further weakened his claim. In such circumstances, the rejection of his representation could not be said to suffer from any legal infirmity.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ application and upheld the impugned order dated 27.06.2014 issued by N.I.T., Patna.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for employees who worked for old government or government-supported institutions before their conversion into Central Government bodies like N.I.T.s and later received regular appointments.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that, where a person accepts a fresh regular appointment after 01.01.2004 and does not challenge the appointment order, he will normally be treated as a “new entrant” for pension purposes. Earlier service on daily wage or consolidated pay in a different legal set-up will not automatically pull him into the old pension scheme.
The decision shows that merely having long past association with an institution is not enough to secure the old pension. What matters is the date of regular appointment in the concerned Central Government service and the contents of the office order that the employee has accepted.
For employees in Bihar and elsewhere, especially those in technical institutes and universities, this judgment underlines the importance of promptly challenging appointment terms if they believe those terms wrongly treat them as new entrants under NPS.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Whether the petitioner, whose services were regularised in N.I.T., Patna after 01.01.2004, was entitled to the pre-2004 GPF-cum-Pension Scheme instead of the National Pension Scheme.
Answer: No. The Court held that he was a new entrant in N.I.T., Patna after introduction of the National Pension Scheme and, having accepted the 21.12.2009 appointment order without challenge, he was rightly governed by NPS.
Issue: Whether rejection of the petitioner’s representation seeking coverage under the old pension scheme by letter dated 27.06.2014 was illegal or arbitrary.
Answer: No. The Court found no infirmity in the impugned order and upheld N.I.T.’s decision rejecting the claim.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur v. Vibha Shukla (Smt) and Others, (2007) 15 SCC 61.
- State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), Constitution Bench (as referred in Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur v. Vibha Shukla).
- Post Master General v. Tutu Das (Dutta) (as referred in Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur v. Vibha Shukla).
- State of Bihar v. Sheela Devi & Ors., 2013(4) PLJR 557.
- K.T. Veerappa v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 9 SCC 406 (as referred in State of Bihar v. Sheela Devi).
- Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam v. Bachan Singh, (2009) 14 SCC 793 (as referred in State of Bihar v. Sheela Devi).
- Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab, 1988 Punjab 265 (Full Bench) (as referred in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam v. Bachan Singh).
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18619 of 2014
Case Title: Syed Mokhtar Hussain v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 (1) PLJR 834
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, Advocate
- For N.I.T., Patna: Mr. Y. V. Giri, Senior Advocate; Mr. S. K. Giri, Advocate
- For Union of India: Mr. Sujeet Kumar Sinha, Central Government Counsel
Nature of the Case: Writ petition (civil) challenging rejection of representation and seeking direction for coverage under old pension scheme.
Link to Judgment: Full text of Patna High Court judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
