P. B. Bajanthri, J.—In these bunch of appeals, appellants have assailed the following orders of the learned Single Judge passed in following C.W.J.Cs:—

2. The appellants were employees of the then Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board (for short ‘the Board’) prior to 01.09.2006. The employees of the Board were governed by C.P.F. Pension Scheme. Due to dissolution of the Board on 01.09.2006, the State Government took a policy decision to absorb such a those employees of the then Board were to be absorbed in different departments. In this regard, a decision was taken on 02.09.2008, while absorbing all such of those employees. It was made clear that their appointments were afresh and New Pension Scheme is application. In this regard, certain litigations were subject matter before this Court in which it is held that service rendered in the then Board is required to be taken note of for the purpose of extending certain service benefits. Accordingly, State Government have extended benefit of ACP/MACP depending upon each employee service particulars. When things stood thus, the appellants demand in respect of extending Old Pension Scheme was declined. Thus, appellants have invoked remedy under writ jurisdiction in filing aforementioned writ petitions in which they suffered orders. Hence, the present L.P.As.

3. The learned counsels for the appellants submitted that past service rendered in the then Board have been considered for the purpose of extending ACP/MACP benefits and in such an event, they are entitled to count past service for the purpose of extending pension under the Old Pension Scheme of the State Government. In this regard, they heavily relied on Resolution dated 14.09.2020 read with a decision of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4452 of 2012 decided on 22.05.2015 (Ram Surat Singh & Others vs. The State of Bihar and Others) and further L.P.A. No. 716 of 2017 decided on 12.12.2017 (Mukteshwar Prasad Singh and Others vs. The State of Bihar and Others).

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State respondent resisted the aforesaid contentions and submitted that the appellants were holder of non-pensionable post in the then Board. Therefore, they are not entitled to pension under Old Pension Scheme. He has also pointed out applicability clause of Old Pension Rules called Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. Further, it is submitted that for the purpose of application of Old Pension Rules, 1950, Government Servant must fulfill the criteria laid down in the Pension Rules. The question of applicability of Old Pension Rules as on 02.09.2008, the date on which the appellants’ services were absorbed in various department and they had status of government servants, as on 02.09.2008, Old Pension Rules, 1950 was not existing in the eye of law, since New Pension Scheme was introduced with effect from 01.09.2005.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed error only while taking the cut off date for Old Pension Scheme read with date of appointment (absorption) and failed to apprise that the appellants have been extended benefit of ACP/MACP etc.

6. In support of decision of the State Government in declining Old Pension to the appellants, Respondents counsel relied on Full Bench decision in the case of Harishankar Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and Others read as under:—

“9. It is required to be noted that in fact, all the writ petitioners were facing retrenchment due to the closure of the Corporation and even the Corporation was not in a position to pay salary to its employees a