Administrative delay in issuing appointment orders does not disqualify an employee from pension schemes if they were part of a selection process completed for their batch-mates prior to the relevant cutoff date.

JUDGMENT :

M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.

Under assail is the order passed in WP.(MD)No.24167 of 2025 dated 26.11.2025.

2. Originally, the first respondent/writ petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the order passed by the third appellant herein dated 01.08.2025 and consequently, to direct the appellants to keep the first respondent/writ petitioner under the old pension scheme without disturbing the service of the writ petitioner.

3. It is the case of the first respondent/writ petitioner that based upon the employment seniority registered with Employment Exchange, call letters were issued as early as in the year 1999 and was included in the selection list that had been published on 29.10.1999. The Committee constituted also decided to go ahead with the selection and sent call letters for attending certificate verification to be held on 16.06.2000 in which the petitioners had participated and informed that they were selected, however, no appointment order was issued. Hence, the writ petitioner and others have filed W.P.No. 15897 of 2002 wherein this Hon’ble Court by order dated 08.05.2002 directed the authorities to consider their representation. However, the said order has not been complied with and therefore, they had filed a contempt petition in Cont.P.No.731 of 2002 whereby recording the statement made by the learned Government Pleader that the Education Department had permitted to fill up 9 vacancies where the petitioners' name was also shown in the list, the Contempt Petition came to be closed. Thereafter, a Review Application also came to be filed by the first appellant herein indicating that nine vacancies were directed to be filled up only based on the seniority and that only 6 could be appointed. The said Review Application was also rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.08.2003 and further directed to issue appointment orders to all the nine writ petitioners, without any further delay. Out of nine writ petitioners, only 4 were given appointment and the writ petitioner was served with the order of appointment only on 31.10.2003. Though the petitioner was appointed belatedly, such delay was only attributed to the authorities. The writ petitioner has been placed under the old pension scheme and all the deductions were made under the old pension scheme and he was also assigned with PF Number up to 2019. Thereafter, he was also assigned with GPF Account No.EDN/171490. Based on an audit objection raised in the auditing on 30.07.2025, an order came to be passed on 01.08.2025 calling upon the writ petitioner to register under new pension scheme by obtaining IFHRMS ID. He challenged the same by way of writ petition. The learned Writ Court allowed the writ petition on the ground that even after a categorical direction to appoint the nine writ petitioners, in which, the first respondent/writ petitioner was also one of the writ petitioners, only four of them have been appointed much before the cut-off date, ie., 01.04.2003 and the writ petitioner was appointed, after the cut-off date and therefore, the writ petitioner would have a right to continue under the old pension scheme only. Aggrieved over the same, the official respondents therein have filed the present writ appeal.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the first respondent was appointed only on 03.11.2003, after the statute cut-off date 01.04.2003, as per G.O.(Ms)No.259, Finance (Pension) dated 06.08.2003 contemplates all Government and Local Body employees appointed on or after 01.04.2003 squarely falls under CPS and Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, cease to apply to such appointees. While implementing the salary distribution, the first respondent was inadvertently continue under GPF pension method, which was later, discovered as an administrative error during the course of audit inspection. Based on the audit objection, necessary corrective steps were directed to be taken. Consequently, the third appellant issued the impugned show cau