The timing and completion of the recruitment process are crucial in determining entitlement to specific pension schemes and benefits.

JUDGMENT

1. By this petition, the petitioners have put forth their prayers at clause 23 (b) to (e) as under :-

"(b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ thereby holding that, the petitioners are recruited prior to 1/11/2005 and therefore, they are entitled to get the benefits of old pension scheme i.e. The Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1982 and Maharashtra Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1984 and General Provident Fund Scheme (GPF.) and for that purpose issue necessary orders;

(c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other writ, order or directions in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the Respondent Authorities to extend the benefits to the Petitioners under The Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1982 and Maharashtra Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1984 and General Provident Fund Scheme (GPF.) and further direct them to make contribution towards the said Pension Scheme and General Provident Fund Scheme;

(d) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the like nature, thereby directing the Respondent authorities not to enforce and apply the New Pension Scheme i.e. Defined Contribution Pension Scheme to the Petitioners in any manner and/or by any method;

(e) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to extend the benefits of The Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1982 and Maharashtra Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1984 and existing General Provident Fund Scheme (GPF.) to the Petitioners with all benefits payable thereunder;"

2. The short issue raised before us is as to whether, these petitioners would be entitled to the benefits of the old pension scheme i.e. the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and the Maharashtra Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1984 and the General Provident Fund Scheme (GPF). The foundation for seeking such relief is dependent on whether, these petitioners were recruited prior to 01/11/2005.

3. The following aspects are undisputed :-

(a) On 9/7/2005, an advertisement was published by respondent No.4/ Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar for filling in the posts of Shikshan Sevaks.

(b) The interviews were held in between 14/12/2005 to 19/12/2005.

(c) On 21/12/2005, the results were declared and the list of selected candidates was published.

(d) Each of these petitioners received their appointment orders dtd. 22/12/2005.

4. The petitioners contend that the select list was published in October, 2005. This contention is based on the Government Resolution dtd. 27/2/2003 wherein, a schedule was prescribed for selection of candidates at page 384(G), which prescribes a preparation of 20% wait list. It, however, clearly mentions that the candidate would be deemed to be selected only after the interviews and would be issued with appointment orders.

5. The learned advocate for the petitioners refers to Rule 2(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) (Amendment) Rules, 2005 mandates that "these rules shall not apply to the Government servants who are recruited on or after 01/11/2005".

6. The learned advocate then relies upon the office memorandum issued by the Government of India, Department of Pension and Pensioner's Welfare (PW), wherein it has been advised that the benefit of pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, cannot be denied to the Government servants since the result for recruitment was declared before 1/1/2004. He submits that this logic needs to be applied even to the case of the petitioners as the old pension scheme cannot be denied to the petitioners if the result of recruitment is declared before 01/11/2005.

7. The learned advocate for the petitioners relies upon Vijay Kumar Mishra and others vs. High Court of Judicature at Patna and others, AIR 2016 SC 3698, more specifically paragr