JUDGMENT :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Kurven Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents.

2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today.

3. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed that they be extended the benefits of the old pension scheme as applicable to the regular employees appointed before the 1.4.2005.

4. The facts in brief would indicate that the petitioners are serving at various police stations as Constables. They are appointed in the year 2006-2007. The case of the petitioners is that on 1.1.2004, the respondent made a policy for recruitment to the posts of Lok Rakshak on a fixed pay of five years by virtue of which it was decided to make recruitment to the posts of Lok Rakshak. On 7.2.2004, an advertisement was published by the Gujarat Subordinate Services Selection Board for recruitment to the Lok Rakshak. Physical Tests were conducted in May/June, 2004 and the written examinations were held on 12.12.2004. Despite the interviews scheduled to be held in December, 2004, the interviews could start from March, 2006 till May, 2006. The final result was first published on 1.7.2006.

5. Ms. Vora, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the recruitment process actually started in February, 2004 and for no fault of the petitioners, the process continued till March/May, 2006 and pursuant to such recruitment process, the appointment of the petitioners were made post the cut of date of 1.4.2005 when the new pension scheme was made applicable to post 1.4.2005 employees.

5.1. Ms. Vora would submit that had the authorities been more vigilant in conducting the recruitment process, the petitioners would have been appointed prior to 1.4.2005 and because of no fault of theirs is only because the recruitment process ended in September, 2006, the applicability of the new pension scheme is bad. She places reliance on the decision dated 19.2.2021 of the State of U.P. vs. Mahesh Narain passed in Special Appeal Defective Case No. 117 of 2021.

6. Mr. Kurven Desai, learned AGP for the State would oppose the petition on the basis of a reply filed by the Under Secretary of the Home Department. He would submit that the petitioners were appointed after the cut of date of 1.4.2005 and it was on this account that the present petitioners are covered under the New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme. It is the case of the State that since there were 3000 candidates, their verification was an exercise which required a sufficiently long time by virtue of which the process was delayed. He would rely on the decision of SCA No. 8832/2019 and allied matters dated 8.3.2019 and the paragraph referring to the decision in the case of Mahesh Narain (Supra), where the Court had upheld the action of the State in extending the benefits of the new pension scheme.

7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it is clear that the issue has been decided by the decision of this Court in SCA No. 8832 of 2019 and allied matters dated 8.3.2019. Relevant paragraphs thereof are reproduced hereunder:

“6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and on perusal of the advertisement what is evident is that the advertisement states that the General Provident Fund Scheme shall be applicable only after appointments are made. The Clause (qualifies it “in accordance with rules”). Clause 19 of the advertisement clearly stipulates that for the purposes of appointment, merit shall be considered. Merely by appearing in the examinations and being rendered successful will not give the candidate the right to appointment. The candidate selected and recommended for appointment sha