Employment recruitment delays not attributable to candidates can exempt them from new pension rules, allowing adherence to older pension systems.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--These petition(s) have been filed by the petitioner(s) primarily seeking the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Pensions) Rules, 1972.

2. In a nutshell, the case of the petitioners is that as their recruitment process was initiated prior to 31.12.2003 and only for administrative reasons assignable to the respondents, their final appointment came about after 01.01.2004, by which time the New Pension Scheme introduced vide Notification dated 22.12.2003 had come into operation, the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme.

3. As both the petitions raise a similar grievance, they are being decided by this common judgment.

4. In WP(C) 5079 of 2020, the respondent no. 3 therein had published an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Assistant Commandant vide Special Selection Board (CPOs-2002) dated 01/07.06.2002. The petitioners applied for the said post. The selection process involved various stages like written examination, the Physical Efficiency Test (`PET'), medical examination and interview. It is the case of the petitioners that for some of the candidates, including some of the petitioners, the selection process was completed by October-November, 2003 itself while for some, it was concluded in 2004, however, the reason for the delay was not attributable to the petitioners. The respondents published the result in the month of May 2004 and offered appointment to the petitioners.

5. In WP(C) 9098 of 2020, it is the case of the petitioners that the respondent no. 1 (`Border Security Force') had issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment as BSF Constable (General Duty) in the month of August 2003. The petitioners had applied for the said post. The selection process consisted of a Physical Efficiency Test followed by a written examination and interview. The selection was subject to a medical test of the candidates. It is the case of the petitioners that the selection process was completed in the month of November 2003 itself, however, for the reasons attributable to the respondents and being administrative in nature, the call letters were issued only in the month of February 2004, that is, after the coming into force of the New Pension Scheme.

6. The learned counsels for the petitioners place reliance on the judgments of this Court in support of their submissions that the issues involved in these petitions is no longer res-integra and has been settled by the following judgments of this Court, with the Special Leave Petitions (hereinafter referred to as `SLP') there-against also being dismissed by the Supreme Court:

i. Judgment dated 27.03.2017, passed in WP(C) 2810 of 2016, titled Inspector Rajendra Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

[SLP dismissed vide Order dated 08.01.2018, passed in SLP(C) Diary No(s). 39335 of 2017, titled Union of India & Ors. v. Inspector Rajendra Singh & Ors.]

ii. Judgment dated 12.02.2019, passed in WP(C) 6680 of 2017, titled Tanaka Ram & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

[SLP dismissed vide Order dated 02.09.2019, passed in SLP(C) Diary No(s). 25228 of 2019, titled Union of India & Ors. v. Tanaka Ram & Ors.]

iii. Judgment/Order dated 09.04.2019, passed in WP(C) 1