The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to order the deletion of specific words from a resolution to extend the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) to eligible employees.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. Since the common issues are involved in these batch of matters, the same are being heard and disposed of by the common order.

3. Apart from several prayers as made in the individual writ petitions, the common prayers in all these writ petitions are for a direction upon the respondents particularly the Respondent No. 7 to 9 (in W.P.S. No. 3017 of 2021) to refund the contribution of the petitioners in the head of Provident Fund in the G.P.F. Account of the petitioner pursuant to old pension scheme which will be provided to the petitioner along with GPF Account Number since the petitioner has opted for the same.

Further prayer has been made for quashing Clause-3 of Resolution vide letter No. 143 dated 05.09.2022, which states that,

^^03- ,u,lMh,y }kjk ljdkjh lsod ds va'knku dh jkf'k fdlh Hkh fLFkfr es izkIr u gksus ij jkT; ljdkj ls bldk nkok ugh fd;k tk ldsxkA^^

And the Clause 3 of format of the said Affidavit enclosed as the Annexure-1 of notification No. 148 dated 21.09.2022 as well, wherein it has been stated that,

^^03- ,u,lMh,y ls esjs va'knku dh jkf'k fdlh Hkh fLFkfr es izkIr u gksus dh fLFkfr es esjs }kjk jkT; ljdkj ls bldk nkok ugh fd;k tk ldsxkA^^

That if the contribution of the employee made to NSDL is not received then in such circumstance employee shall not claim the same from State Government, as this particular clause is arbitrary in nature denying the legitimate right of the employees to claim contribution made by them to NSDL.

4. From perusal of the aforesaid prayers, it appears that the main grievance of the petitioners is regarding consideration of their cases for their coverage under Old Pension Scheme (for short ‘OPS’) which was existed prior to 01.12.2004.

5. Earlier a notification was issued by the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand vide letter No. 143 dated 05.09.2022 whereby Old Pension Scheme was adopted for coverage of employees who have retired from 01.12.2004 till 01.09.2022 shall be considered under OPS.

6. On 04.10.2023, during the course of hearing of the matter, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 7 to 9 produced a copy of the resolution contained in memo No. 157 dated 25.08.2023, issued by the Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand and submits that by the said resolution, employees of the State Govt. whose appointments were made in terms of the Advertisements/ Appointment Orders issued prior to 01.12.2004 and were appointed on or after 01.12.2004 have been included in the OPS subject to condition that they have to opt and submit application regarding the same to their Appointing Authority/ Department prior to 31.10.2023. It was submitted that the grievances of the writ petitioners have already been redressed. The said resolution was brought by way of supplementary counter-affidavit which is taken on board.

7. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel along with by Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI appearing for respondent Nos. 7 to 9 (in W.P.S. No. 3017 of 2021) jointly submits that in view of resolution dated 25.08.2023, several writ petitions, viz. W.P.(S). No. 2414 of 2020; W.P.(S). No. 2375 of 2021, were dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to pursue the matter before the concerned Department. It was further submitted that since grievances of the petitioners have already been redressed in view of the said resolution, no cause of action has arisen and now, nothing remains to be adjudicated and as such, the present writ petitions shall also be dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.

8. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vociferously argues that the grievances of petitioners have yet not been redressed. Learned counsel submits that redressal of the grievances cannot be conditional. The petitioners cannot get relief at the whims of the respondents. The conditional notification/ resolution is not at all accepted to the petitioners and they are mainly aggrieved by Clause-5(x
) of the Resolutio