Sri P.Praveen Kumar v. The State of Telangana

disposed of in terms ol the aforcsaid conlrnon ordcr. Thcre shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, rnisccllanecus petitions pcnding, il arry, shall stand closed To, i/TRUE COPY// lhgS_pl, Chief Secretary to Government, Fina Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Telangana SeCretaiiat, fne Hyderabad SD/.A. JAYASREE SSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER Sta partment f Telangana,

2. The Principar secretary to Government. Law Department. Dr.B.R.Ambedkar ^ Telangana Secretariat. The State of lefang;,il"Evoerauuo 3 The principar secretarv to ooveinmeni. r-rr" dtrtritr rerangana, consumer Affairs. Food and Civit Suppties oepartm";i. Drs:i.arn"Jt""i'%riig;;..'=' Secretariat. Hyderabad 4 The Re.gistrar General. The High Court for the State of Telangana, 5. The Reqistra(Admn). High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 6. The Additionai Secreia*"to Covernment "ilnai"..'fiin,"try of personnel. Public Grievances and Fensions oepirt.unloilension and pensioner,s _ jielQrg Nayak Bhawan, Xnan ilti*et, Ne* oeiii /. rne {fl. Urstrict and Sessions Judqe, Mahaboobnaoar d rne F<egrstrar.. Teranoana s^tate^ consumer Disputei Redressar commission, Hyderabad ^Lof Khairatabad, Hyderabid _ 500004. I I at Hvderabad [OUT] 9 One CC to Srr K. Rajashekar, Advocate [OPUC]. ' 1O.Two CCs to GP for rin' n'""" prannins ' iiigL Co"t for t rt: State of Telangana' 1 1 . Two'CC to The GP for Services-ll' High Court for the S'tale of Telanqana' at i 2 'cj;; Ca-ti'5n ( v Rurn'n, SC for the Hish court [ct'ucl 1 3. Two CD CoPies Hvderahad [OUT] fitong witt the Copv of Order dated 19 03'2025 ln W'P'N: 22559' 15644 and 1 1398) I i I t 'at:\ I ir"T '* j) -.)/ _t- / ^ t | .' -r^i. '.-l' ( HIGH COURT DATED:1 410812025 t I ORDER WP.No.23737 of 2025 ...i. / ';' / -- t, lii5 ll \, -:: \. ,1. \.' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS .,' : \^, d'1 4 PSK,J&NNR,J wp_22559 2023&barch THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NOS.22559 15644 AND 11398 0F 2023 COMMON ORDER: Qter Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Roo Nand.ikonda) Since the parties and the issue involved in batch of these three writ petitions are common, these three writ petitions are being heard together and disposed by way of this common

2. A11 these three Writ Petitions are liled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 having adopted and implemented the Government of India's New Pension Scheme and not adopting the guidelines of the Office Memorandum, dated 17.02.2O2O issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government of India uide Ref.No.57 l04l2Ol9-P & PW (B), and Office Memorandum under Ref.No.S7/O5/2O21- P&PW(B), dated 03.03.2023, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 74, 16, 19,21 and 3OO-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents to adopt and 5 PSK,'&NNR,] wp,22559 2o23&batch implement the Office Memorandums, dated 17.O2.2O2O ar'd

03.O3.2023, either by adopting or modifying tht Telangana State Revised ['ensiol Rules, 1980 or issuing offi<:j rl Memorandum iclentrcal to t[-rc Government ol India Offic,: Memorandums, dated 17.O2.2O2O and O3.O3.2O23, so as to lrive effect to the petil ioners FACTS OF THE CASE

3. F'etitioncrs before this Court in .V.P.No.22559 of 2023 were appointed and working as Jur ior Assistant(s), Typist(s) and Personal Assistant(s) in the Ur: ir of District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar District; simik rly petitioners in W.P.No.156.14 of 2023 were appointed as JtL rjor Assistant(s), Typist(s), Fir:ld Assistant(s), Copyist(s) and Attt ndar (s)/Process Server(s) in the unit of District and llc'ssions Judge, Mahabubnagar District and the petitioners ur W.P.No.11398 of 2023 were appointed and working as Jur ior Assistant(s), Typist(s), Field Assistant(s) and Attender(s)/ I']n,cess Server(s) in the unit of Pnncipai District and Sessions Jr,clge, Nizamabad District and the aforesaid Districts are under the control of the High Court for the State of Telangana. A11 the petitioners were appointed tl-rrough direct recruitment vide No illcation No. 1 of 6 PSK,]&NNR,, wp 22559_2023&batch 2004, No.2 of 2OO4, No.5 of 2OO4, No.6 of 2OO4 and No.7 of 2004, dated 22.O1.2OO4 and 19.01.2004 respectively, issued by the Unit Head of Mahabubnagar District.

4. For the purpose of disposal of these three writ petitions, the facts in W.P.No.15644 of 2023 are to be taken into consideration, which read thus:

5. It is stated that after conducting written examination for the said posts, due to Administrative reasons during said period, appointment letters were delayed and the same were issued on 18.O2.2005, 18.02.2OO5, 25.05.2005, 18.03.2005,

26.O I.2OO5, 26.O I .2OO 5 and 23.O 4.200 5 respectively.

6. It is stated that during relevant period of issuance of aforesaid notifications, the other units of Principal and District Judges, which were under the control of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, also issued notifications for filling up of posts that arose prior to 3 1 . 08.2004 those notifications were acted upon and appointment orders were also timely issued and those persons were covered under Old Pension Scheme. But, in the case of combined unit of District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar District, now divided into five units, under the control of respondent Nos.6 to 11, stated that issuance of appointment letters before 31.O8.2OO4 got delayed due to 1 P5K,l&NNR,J wp_22559_2O23&barch Administrative reasons. As a result the pet,:tioners have lost their valuable right to receive pension un lcr Old Pension Scheme, General Provident Fund etc. However tl-re persons who got selected under corresponding notifications issued during the simiiar pr:riod in other Units under the controI ol this Court, got covered under Old Pension Scheme benefits I t is only in the carse of the petitioners that such a grave p.- r.judice has been caused. It is further stated that in the writ rlliclavit that the petitioners have approached appropriate Foru r rr s for ventiiating their grievance that they are entitled for Old Pr:nsion Scheme . But so far their grievance has not been settled

7. It is stated that in the budget lor 20O1-2002, the Governmr:nl of India has announced that r ll Netv Pension Schemes based on a defined contribution wou.<l be irnplemented in respect of Central Government Services iu,-lucling A11 India Services, such as Indian Administrative Servj< cs, Indian Police Services, Indian Foreign Service etc., after 11.10.2001. The combined State of Anclhra Pradesh and the Slatc of Telangana uide its G.O.Ms.No.653, Finance (Pension I) [).partment, dated

22.O9.2OO4 have decided to adopt the GovernLnent of India's New Pension Scheme (NPS) based on Defined lontributions for tl're employees of State, who are newly recniitcd on or after 8 PSK,I&NNR,J wp_22559 2023&batch O1.O9.2OO4. Under the new Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS), each employee has to contribute certain amount and government will contribute certain amount. It is stated that when old pension scheme was prevailed, there was no such contribution required from the employees.

8. While the matter stood thus, taking into consideration various representations/ reference s and decisions of the Courts and after careful analysis of the same, the Government of India, issued clarifications that oid pension scheme has to be applied ln case of candidates, who were selected prior to O 1.01.2004, but their appointments were got delayed due to administrative reasons/ constraints.It is further stated that further representations were received by the Government of India, after issuance of officials Memorandum under Reference No.57l04l2O9-P&PW(B), dated 17.O2.202O, from the employees requesting to extend the said benefit of pension on the ground that the appointment made against the posts/vacancies advertised /notified for recruitment prior to notification of National Pension System, were referred to the Judgments of various High Courts and Tribunals. Considering the same, respondent No.5 has issued further clarification by way of official Memorandum under Reference No.57/05/2O21-P I PSK,]&NNB,] wp 22559 2023&batch &PW(B), dated 03.03.2023, stating that n,.rtter has been examined in consultation with the Departrr cnt of Financial Services, Personnel & Training, trxpenditure err cl Lcgal Affairs in the light of various representations and deci:; ons of the Court and deciced tl-rat all cases, where the Central ilovernment Civil Employees have been appointed against a Lrost or vacancy which was advertised / notified for recruitrc r: nt / appointment prior to date of notification for National Pensicrr System i.e., on

22.12.2OO3 and is are covered under NPS on . ornir-rg serwice on or before 01.01.2OO4, has given one-time opti n, r"vhich has to be covered under the CCS/ (Pension) Rules, 1972 (now 2O2l Rules). The said option exercised by the Govr nrment Servants concerne<l by 3 1.08.2023

9. It is further stated that respondent rlos. 1 to 4 having aclopted NPS with effect from Ol.O9.2OO4 irarve invariably adopted the necessary corrective measures tall rn b\, the Central Governmt:nt by way of official Memorandum, rluted 17.02.2O2O and 03.011.2O23. It also further stated that wlrc'r-r the combined State of Andhra Pradesh adopted Contributor-y l'ension Scheme on O 1.09.2004, which was introduced by th Government of India by bringing amendments to Andhrer l)radesh Revised Pensron Ilules, 19BO vide G.O.MS.No.653, Fi rrrnce (Pension-l) 10 P5(,I&NNR,J wp 22559 2021&batch Department, dated 22.09.2004, there is no bar for the Government of Telangana or the respondents herein to implement the guidelines issued by the Government of India vide Oflrcial Memorandum No.57 04 12O19-P&PW(B), dated

17.O2.2O2O and official Memorandum under Reference, dated O3.O3.2O23. It is also stated that if the said clarifications and amendments were brought in the Telangana State Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the petitioners and several similarly situated persons would come under the purview of old pension scheme. This is because, in case of the petitioners herein, the vacancies in the posts against which they were appointed had arisen prior to Ol.O9.2OO4, notifications were also issued prior to O I .O9 .2OO4 , but unfortunately due to administrative lapses/ exigencies on the part of recruiting authority of the concerned Unit alone appointment letters were issued after O|.O9.2OO4 and the said delay was only due to administrative lapses

10. It is further stated that similarly situated employees of Judiciat Department, who were qualified under the same notilication issued before 01.09 .2OO4 and received appointment letters prior to that date are currently enjoying the benefits of the old pension scheme. But, in the case of petitioners, if the 11 PSK,I&NNR,J wp 22559_2023&batch responderlts will implement the guiclelin's issued vide Memorandum, dated 17.O2.2O2O and (,i1.03.2023, the petitioners would get benefit ol Old Pensi rrr Scheme and General Provident Fund, as the State Governrr cnt adopted said scheme onlv from 01.09.2OO4. It is stated ilrat the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge (Head () L:rrters) Delhi, in complianr;e with the said Memorandum, daterl ()3.03.2023, had issued Circular No.889/ 1 1653-12653, dated O ;.04.2O23, giving opportunity to the employees whose appointn,clrts were based on vacancies and notifications issued prior t: r'ff'ective date of NPS. I I . It is further stated that actir 1 u por-r varlous rcprcscntations of scverai employees includiril , the petitioners, respondent No.2 itself addresserl a letter No. 166/TLSPlRLl2O2O, dated 05.O6.2O2O, L<:, rcspondent No.3 to furnish information in the month of June, 1) )J0 perta,rning to the employees of State Judicial Ministerial r:rd Subordinate Services <:overcd by NPS in the prescribed forrn duly specifying the vacancy arisen prior to 31.O8.2004. I3asing on that, respondent No.3 called for information l', )ln the learned Principai Distnct Judges/Unit Heads vide RO(l No.386 l2O2O-C 1, dated 08.06.2020 and rn response to the s rrne, respondent 72 P5K,'&NNR,, wp 22559 z023&batch Nos.6 to l1 furnished information to respondent No.3 confirming that the petitioners and others are eligible for old pension scheme. But till date no concrete steps have been taken by the respondents. L2. Lastly, it is contended that in similar circumstances, the Division Bench of High Court of Bombay in Khilari Rajendra Eknath and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others in (W.P.No.227O of 2O2ll dde order, dated 2A.O4.2O23 taking into account the Office Memorandum issued by Union Government, 5th respondent, dated 17.O2.2O2O and also the Office Memorandum, dated 03.03.2023 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions, New Delhi, and also considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'lale Apex Court in various Judgments, directed the petitioners therein shall be governed by the Old Pension Scheme in vogue prior to 0 f . I 1.2005, as well as General Provident Fund Scheme.

13. Whereas W.P.No.1139B of 2023 was filed by the petitioners seeking the similar relief sought in W.P.Nos. 15644 of

2023. They were appointed as Junior Assistants, Typists, Amin/Field Assistant, Attenders/ Process Serwers etc in the Unit of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad District 13 P5K,J&NNR,] wp 22559,2023&batch against the vacancy that arose before 31.08.2004 pursuant to the Notifications, dated 19.O7.2004. They appcar- lor written examinatron and appointed on i 1.07.2005. 06.07.2005 and

19.09.20()5 respectively. According to the pctrtioners, the decision to give appointment ietters to petitionr:;'s was taken by the respondents prior to 01.09.2004, but due to administrative exigencies, the selection process got delayed ;rnd as a result of which, the yretitioners have Iost their valuab:, right to receive pension unclcr old pension scheme und: r- corresponding '['hcrefore, the notrflcatic,ns during the similar period. petitioners pray for issuance of a direction to respondent Nos.l to 4 to adopt and implement the Governmer t ol India's New Pension Scheme and to implement the guidelircs of the Official Memorandum. dated 17.O2.2O2O issued )\' the Deputy Secretary to Government of India vide Ref.Nc ST l04 l2Ol9 P& PW (B), and ofhciai Memorandum i rrder reference No.57 l05l2o2 r'P & Pw (B), dated 03.03.2023

14. Per contra, respondent No.t has rlccided to adopt New Pension Scheme based on a Defined Contnbution's for the employee:; of the State, who are newly recr-uited after OI.O9.2OO4. He further submitted that resp, rndent No.1 has issued further clarification vide Offic,: Memorandum 74 PSK,J&NNR,-I wp 225S9 2023&batch Ref.No.S7lOs|2O2L-P & PW (B), dated 03.O3.2023, in all cases where the Central Government Civil Employees have been appointed against a post or vacancies, which were advertised / notified for recruitment / appointment, prior to the date of notification for National Pension system r.e., 22.12.2003 and is covered under the National Pension System even though joining in service was on or after 01.01 .2004. As these people were given a one time option to be covered under CCS Pension Rules, 1972 (Now 202 1). This option exercised by the concerned Government servant by 31.08.2004. It is further stated that respondent No.1 while issuing necessary corrective measures to the National Pension Scheme by way of official memorandum, dated 17.O2.2O2O and 03.03.2023 has suggested/advised the State Governments also to adopt the same. lt is further stated that the issue of adopting Government of India Memorandum by the State Government of Telangana is a policy matter and involves a decision whether to amend the statutory Rules Governing pensions namely the Telangana State Revised Pension Rules, 1980, or not, which is entirely within the purview and domain of the State Government and hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petitions. 15 PSK,]&NNR,J wp 22559 2021&batch

15. IIeard Sri V.RajaShekar Reddy, lezrrned counsel for the petitionr:rs, Smt. M. Shalini, learned Gover nment Pleader for Services-l . appearing for respondent No.1, Mr.Vivek Jain, lcartrcd Star-rding Counsel, apltearing for respondent Nos.3, 4, 6 to 1 I . Pr:ru sed the entire material on record L6. 1'he question that arises for consr,leration in these wnt petitlons is "whether the petitioners are entitled to New Pension Scheme pursuant to the Office Merrrorandum, dated

17.O2.2O2O, issued by Deputy Secretary tc Government of India vide Ref.No.57l04l2Ol9-P &PW(llf and Office Memorandum under reference No.57lOlil2O21-P&PWlBl dated 03.O3.2023 introduced by the Governrnent of India".

17. 'lhe Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.653, Finance (Pension -I) De partment, clated 22.O9.2OO4, stating that in the Budget for 20Ot-2O02, the Governmr:nt of India has announced that a New Pension Scheme based on Defined Contribution will ;e introduced to those who enter Central Governrrrent service including the AIt India Services, such as Indian Administratir, <, Service, Indian Police Servir:e and Indian Foreign Service (Dt:fence, Railu,ays, Posts, 'lelecom, Autonomous Bodies and Screntific 16 P5K,]&NNR,J wp 22559_2023&batch Organizations) after 01.10.2001. Further, the then Government of Andhra Pradesh after careful consideration, decided to adopt the Government of India's New Pension Scheme based on Defined Contributions for the employees of the State, who are newly recruited on or after OLO9.2OO4 . Under the new Contributory Pension Scheme, each employee has to contribute certain amount and Government may contribute certain amount. The New Contributory Pension Scheme is not applicable to the already existing/ serving employees of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the amendment was also been made to the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short, 'the Rules, 1980J by incorporating sub-rule 2 (g) (i) to the Rules,1980, which reads as under: "ln the said Rules, in Part-I after rule 2 (f) the following shalt be added, namely: "{g)(i) These rules shall not apply to all the Covernment Servants appointcd on or after Ol.O9.2OO4, to serviccs and posts in connectron with the affairs of thc State which are borne on pcnsionable establishment, $,hether temporarl., or permanent. {ii) These rules shall not apply to all appointments, whether temporary or permanent, made on or after O1.O9.2OO4 in all the State Public Sector Undertaklngs, whose pay and allowances are drawn from the Consolidated Fund of the State or not, (iii) These rulcs shall not apply to all appointmcnts, whether temporary or permanent, madc on or after O1.09.2004 of all the tiers of the Rural and Urban l-ocal Bodies such as thc Gram Panchayats, MandalParishads, ZillaParishads, Municipalitics, Municipal Corporations, Urban Dcvclopment Authorities ,Co- operative and Urban Local Bodies, ZillaGrandhalayasamsthas, Agriculturc 11 PSK,I&NNR,J wp_22559_2021&batch Marketing Comnuttees, including all the Universities in thc State, including all the Institutions functionlng under thc Universities, whose pa1 and allowances are drawn frorn the Corlsolldated Fund of the State or not. (iu) These Rules shall not apply to appointnlcnts, virether tenlpolary or permanent nradr: or-r or alter 01 .09.2OO4 into alt the Institutilrls recciving Grant-in- Aid frorn thc (lovcnuncnt. (u) 'l'lrcsc Rulcs shall not apply to appoilrtmcnts, ,vhelher temporary or pcrmancnt, made on or aftcr 01.09.20O4 to all Co-.]Deratil'c Instrtutions, Autollonrous Corporations, whose pay and allowanccs lrc drawn fiorrr the Consolidatcd Fund of the Statc or not."

18. With the above lactual background as it is seen that the said {i.O. being applicable to all the inst.1 utiorls including the High Court for thc State of Telangarta alrd which is also applicable to entire District Judiciary. The Jre titioners before this Courl were appointed under different Notii-ications, different cadres in the unit of District Judiciary ultder the control ol the High Court 1br the State of Telalgana and th€ then High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners are presenllr. rvork'ng n the units of the District Judiciary, which are un(t.rr the Control of the High (lor.rrt of State of Telangana.

19. Learned counsel lor the petitioners :.ubmitted that in the Notification, dated 19.Ol.2OO4, issued by District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, does not mention about the applicability of pension scheme. However, it is alleged that the appointmenl letters issued by the Principal Di;trict & Sessions Judge, Nizarnabad, stated that the candidates appointed to the 18 PSK,'&NNR,J wp 22559 2023&batch respective posts are covered by the contributory pension scheme and the existing pension scheme as per A. P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 would not apply to them as per the instructions issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.655, dated 22.O9.2004

20. He further submitted that the combined State of Andhra Pradesh had adopted Contributory Pension Scheme on Ol.O9.2OO4, which was introduced by the Government of India by amendment to Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 vide G.O.Ms.No.653, dated 22.09.2O04. Therefore, there is no bar for the respondents to implement the guidelines issued by the Government of India vide Office Memorandums, dated

17.O2.2O2O and 03.O3.2023. He also further submitted that in case of similarly situated employees of other units of Judicial Department, who were qualified pursuant to the Notification issued prior to O I .O9 .2OO4 and whose posting letters were issued prior to Ol.O9.2OO4 and they are taking the old pension scheme but, in case of petitioners, due to administrative reasons, they would not get the benefit of old pension scheme and General Provident Fund Scheme as their appointment order is subsequent to 01.09.20O4 and hence, he prays to implement the Office Memorandums, dated t7.O2.2O2O and 03.03.2023 19 P5K,J&NNR,] wp 22559 2023&batch 2L. On the other hand, learned Goverr ment Pleader for Services-}, appearillg for respondent No.1 vr:hemently argued that the :rpplicability of the Pension Scheme is not mentioned in the notilicatron, dated ),9.O1.2OO4 issued bv District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, but the same wasi melltioned in the individual appointment letters that the candict,rles appointed to post is covered by Contributory Pension Sicherne and the existing pension scheme as per A.P. Revisc<l Pension Rules, 1980 wili not be applicable to them as per t he rnstructions issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.655, ,latcd 22.O9.2004. She further contended that the petitioners i aving knowledge about non applicability of the provisions oi the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Now they cannot c krim that their appointments are subject to applicability of o1<l pe nslon scheme. As a result their claim for applicability of the r,lr[ scheme is not acceptable. He further contended that ,he said Office Memorandum, dated 17.02.2020 and G.O.NIs;.No.655, dated

22.09.2OO4 are subsequent to the Office MerrLorandum, dated

03.03.2023 which was not adopted by th,: Government of Telangan:r. 'lherefore, the respondents case i:; that these office Memorandum were not adopted by Governme nt of Telangana, which is jssued by the Deputy Secretary to Gor e rnnrent of India 20 PSK,J&NNR,J wp 22559 2021&batch vide Ref.No.57 / 04 / 2OL9-P&PW(B), wherein at Patagraph No.4, it was held was under: "The matter has been examined in consultation with the Department of Personnel & Training Department of Expenditure and Department of Legal Affairs in the tight of the various represen tation s / references and decisions of the Courts in this regard. It has been decided that in all cases where the results for recruitment were declared before O1.01.2004 against vacancies occurring on or before 31.12.2OO3, the candidates declared successful for rccruitmcnt shall bc eligibte for coverage undcr the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Accordingly, such Governmcnt servants u,ho wcre declared succcssful for recruitment in the rcsults declared on or before 31.12.2OO3 against vacancies occurring before O1.01.2004 and are covered under the National Pension Systcm on joining servicc on or after 01.O.2004, may be givcn a one-time optron to be covered under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. This option may be cxercised by the concerned Government servants latest by 3t .o5.2020." Accordingly, the Government servants who were declared successful for recruitment in the results declared on or before

31.L2.2OO3 against vacancies occurring before 01.01.2OO4 and are covered under the National Pension System but have joined service on or after O1.01.2OO4 may be given one time.option to be covered under the CCS Pension n:.les, 1972. This option may be exercised by the concerned Government servants not later than 3I .O5.2O2O, the option so exercised shall be final Furthermore, in paragraph No.5 of the said office Memorandum, stated that those Government servants who are eligible to exercise option in accordance with paragraph No.4 above, and 21 PSK,I&NNR,J \rvp_22559_2021&batch whoever did not exercised this option by th<r stipulated date, sha11 continue to be covered by the National Perrsion System.

22. Further, the Government of Inc ia, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions; Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare vide Office Me;norandum dated

03.03.2023 has issued certain guidelines main y appiicabiiity of the Old Pension Scheme by providing therr opportunity to exercise their one time option the relevant paragraphs are extracted belolv: ":i. Rcpresenta tions irave been received in th s L)epartnent fronr thc Government senrants appointed on or afte- O1.01.2O04 reqrLesting for extending the benefit of the pension scheme under Central Civil Ser-vices (Pension) Rules, 1972 (now lO21) on thc grottnd that their appointment was nade allainsl thc posts/vacancies advertised/notihed for recruitr( nt prior to notification for National Pension System, refer nq to court judgments of various Hon'ble High Court and Horl'l)Lc Ccrltral Administrative Tribunal allowing such benefits to aF1,li.ants. 4 The mattcr has becn cxamined irr cor s ult.rtiofl with the Del)artment of Financial Scrvices, Dcpartmcnt ,r lrcr-souncl & Training, Departmcnt of Expenditure and Dcpartn ent of Legal Affairs in the trght of the various re prcscntations / r-r'fc rcnccs and decisrons of thc Courts rn this regard. [t has noi\ 5cen r.lecided that, in all cases where tlle Central Government i rvil cn.iploycc has bccn appointed against a post or vacancl rvhich was advertised/notified for rccruitment/appointment, )rrior to the date of notification for National Pension iiystem i.e., 22.12.2003 and is covered under the National Pensi l-r Sl,'stem on joining seruice on or aftcr Ol.Ol.2OO4, may bc grvr: r a one-time option to be covered under the CCS (Pension) Rule s. 1972 (now 22 P5K,]&NNR,] wp 22559_2023&bat.h 2021). This option may be exercised by the concerned Government servants latest by 31.O8.2O23.

23. In the present case, admittedly amendment of Rule 2(g) (i) to the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 come into force on 01.O9.20O4. In all cases where the Central Government Civil employee have been appointed against a post vacancy which was advertised/ notified recruitment/appointment, prior to the date of notification for National Pension System i.e., 22.L2.2OO3 and is covered under the Nationai Pension System on joining service on or after 0i.O1.2004, may be given a one-time option to be covered under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (now 2o2ll. Further, the Notifications, dated 19.Ol.2OO4 and 22.05.2004, issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, were prior to date of applicability of the said amendment i.e., 01.O9.2004, the process was done after 01.09.20O4 so far as the order of appointments is concerned. It appears that the entire process got delayed for the reasons best known to the respondents Even otherwise Notification was issued on 19.0L2OO4, obviously at best, it might have communicated much prior to O1.O9.2O04 as entire process has took place for about 7 to 8 months and the petitioners were selected in the month of July, 23 PSK,]&NNR,I wp 22559 2023&batch 2005 ancl they were posted in varlous depzr -tments and the entire selection process has taken place much prior to ll.O7.2OO5. The said vacancies which is sa id to have been notified u,ould be much prior to the date of 31.12.2003 though notification was subsequent to O i.01.2004. I Lr respect of the vacancies that arose on or after 01.01.2CO4 New Pension Scheme r,vould not apply to the candidates as very amendment to A.P.Revised Pensron Rules,1980 is made rrpplicable only to the appointments by temporary, which had rnade on or after ot.09.2004

24. In the present case, though appointrlent letters were issued subsequent to Ol.O9 .2OO4 , the erLtire process of recruitment was made after 01.09.2004 Therefore, the vacancies notified would pertain to those t.rat arose before 3l .72.2OO3. As such the contention of the petitioners holds good and this bench has no hesitation to conll to a conclusion that the appointments which made in respect of the present notihcations the applicability to the New Pension Scheme cannot be accepted and the petitioners who are appointed under said notihcations and whose vacancies aros {l much pricr to

31.12.2OO3 would squarely fali within the purview of A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 198O. 24 PSK,I&NNR,] wp-22559 2023&batch

25. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Khilari Rajendra Eknath and others v. the State of Maharashtra and others lW.P.No.227O of 2O2ll, dated, 24.O4.2O23,wherein the High Court of Bombay held that the provlsions of Old Pension Scheme are required to be appiicable in respect of vacancies which arose prior to 01.01.2004 and placed reliance on the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India on O3.O3.2O23 giving one time option to the Central Government employees who's results were declared successful for the said recruitment on or before 31.I2.2OO3 as against the vacancies which occurred before 01.01.2004. The High Court of Bombay by relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avinaah Singh v. Union of Indiar and Parmanand Yadav v. Union of India2, while allowing the writ petition observed that the petitioners therein wili be governed by the provisions of the Old Pension Scheme in vogue prior to 01. 1 1.2005, as well as General Provident Fund Scheme. Further, the petitioners shall not be governed by the provisions of the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme introduced vide G.R., dated 31.10.2005. The petitioners' contribution to DCPS be credited to their GPF 1(2011) sCC Online Del 2432 ' (2015) SCC Online Del 7274 25 PS(,J&NNR,] wp 22559_2023&batch Accounts. The modalilties as suggested in pe ragraph No.B of the Office Memorandum, dated 03.03.2003 issued by the Government of India shall be adopted while switching over petitioners Irom DCPS to Old Pension Sch,:mc. In Prafulla Kumar Swain Etc. v. Prakash Chandra Misra and others3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the recruitment cannot tantamount to appointment. Basing on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivaji Nagnath Lokare and others v. State of Maharashtra and othersa, it was observed that the appointment cannot be read to in <'1ude the words 'selection, recruitment or recruitment process'. Pursuant to the entire material on record, this bench is of the opinion that the petitioners would fall within the 'Old Pension Scheme' and New Pension Scheme will not be applicable for th,: reason that the entire selection process had commenced pricr to 01.09.2004 and continued till 02.08.2005. Admittedly, the said notification 1S pertaining to vacancies that arose prior tc 31.12.2O03, as such, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to be considered under Oid Pension Scheme and the A.P.Revised Pension Rules would be applicable 1993 scc supl.(3) 181 r o (zorz)s wh. r.r.ss+ 26 PSK,I&NNR,J wp_225s9_2o23&batch

26. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out and brought to the notice of this Court regarding the letter, dated 08.06.2020 addressed by the Registrar (Administration), to all the learned Principal District Judges/Unit Heads calling for information pertaining to employees covered by National Pensicin System (CPS) in the prescribed proforma, which reads as under: "Adverting to the subject and reference cited, I am to request you to furnish the informatron pertaining to employees of State Judicial Ministerial and Subordinate Services coverecl by National Pension System (CPS), in the prescribed proforma (enclosed herewith) by return FAX for onward transmission of the same to the Secretary to Government, Lau, (LA, LA & J) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad-" 27 . The opinion of this bench is that the case of the petitioners herein would fall within the Old Pension Scheme. But considering the fact that there is no information submitted by either of the respondents 1n respect of opportunity being given to the petitioners to exercise their options, we feel it desirable and appropriate that the respondents shall seek options as a one time measure from all the petitioners, who are covered under the present writ petitions and any other employees who are recruited and whose selection process was commenced prior to 07.O9.2OO4 as against the vacancies which 27 PSK,]&NNR,J 'rp,22559_2O23&batEh had arisen much prior to 31.12.2003. Consequently respondents shall take further steps accor(iingly and make applicability of the relevant pension rules to i re petitioners as opted by them, which are applicable to them as per the Judgment of the Hlgh Court of Bombay rn Khilari Rojendra Eknath's case (supra)- It is further directec that the entire exercise sha1l be completed by the responden,r; within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this 2A. With the above observations, ttrese three Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. JUSTICE I'.SAM KOSHY JUSTICE NARSING RAC} NANDIKONDA Date: 19.03.2O25 Note: L.R.copy to be nnrked (Bi o) YVL