Coverage under Old Pension Scheme is determined by appointment date, not recruitment process commencement; arbitrary denial underlay by legal precedent is unsupported.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The petitioners have filed these petitions, inter alia, impugning an Office Memorandum dated 17.02.2020 (hereafter referred to as `the impugned OM'), whereby the coverage under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereafter `the Old Pension Scheme') was confined to only those candidates who were recruited against vacancies arising on or before 31.12.2003 and the selection results were declared on or before 01.01.2004. All other employees appointed after the cut-off date, including the petitioners, are not covered under the Old Pension Scheme but would participate in the National Pension Scheme (hereafter referred to as `NPS'), which is a contributory scheme.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved as they have been denied the benefit of being covered under the Old Pension Scheme. The petitioners had made their representations to the Establishment of this Court (hereafter `the DHC') which were rejected on the recommendations of the concerned Committee of the DHC. The petitioners have, therefore, impugned the order rejecting their representations as well.

3. The petitioners claim that since their applications for employment with the DHC were submitted pursuant to the advertisements inviting applications issued prior to 31.12.2003 and the selection process had commenced prior to the said date, they are entitled to be covered under the Old Pension Scheme. They contend that denial of this benefit on the ground that the appointment letters were issued after the cut-off date of 31.12.2003 is arbitrary and unreasonable.

4. The petitioners have assailed the impugned OM on the ground that it is arbitrary and contrary to the earlier decisions rendered by this Court. The questions that arise for consideration in these petitions are: whether the denial of benefit under the Old Pension Scheme to the petitioners is arbitrary and unreasonable; whether the impugned OM is contrary to the earlier decisions rendered by this Court; and if so, whether the impugned OM is liable to be set aside and/or the conditions for relaxation are required to be expanded so as to cover other candidates as well.

Factual Context

5. The petitioners (seven in number) in W.P.(C) 7619/2021 had applied for being appointed to the post of Personal Assistants pursuant to an advertisement issued by the DHC on 07.06.2003, inviting applications from Indian Nationals for filling up existing vacancies and preparing a panel of candidates for appointment to the post of Personal Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000 plus allowances as are sanctioned from time to time. The petitioners were found eligible and, by letters dated 20.11.2003, were called to appear for the skill examination, which included shorthand and a typing test scheduled on 14.12.2003. The results of the same were declared in the month of February 2004. The petitioners were successful in clearing the said test and were admitted to viva voce/interview. DHC issued call letters dated 05.03.2004, calling upon the petitioners to appear for the interview/viva voce scheduled to be held on 24.03.2004 and 25.03.2004. The petitioners successfully qualified the viva voce/interview and the final results were declared in the month of May 2004. The petitioners were, thereafter, issued appointment letters during the period May 2004