JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner, Shri Anupras Singh, learned Counsel representing Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Shri Vinayak Saxena, learned Counsel representing Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as ''SGPGIMS') and learned State Counsel appearing for the State of U.P.

2. By instituting the proceedings of this Special Appeal, the appellant-petitioner questions the order dated 17.02.2022 passed by learned Single Judge whereby Writ-A No. 2001877 of 2015 has been dismissed and her claim for grant of the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme after being appointed in the Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as 'RML') has not been acceded to.

3. Impeaching the order passed by learned Single Judge, it has been argued on behalf of the appellant-petitioner that the construction/interpretation sought to be given by learned Single Judge to the Government Order dated 16.09.2010 is not tenable for the reason that the said Government Order has been issued for conferring certain benefits to the retired employees and accordingly, it has to be read and construed in a manner which farthers the benefit flowing from it rather than curtailing the same. Further submission made on behalf of the appellant-petitioner is that it is the Government Order dated 16.09.2010 issued by the State Government in the Finance Department which holds the field for the reason that it embodies and expresses the general policy decision of the State Government applicable to all rather than the Government Order dated 29.08.2014, which has been issued by the Medical Education Department, that too without consultation with the Finance Department. It has also been urged by the learned Counsel representing the appellant-petitioner that in case of beneficial legislation which will include beneficial subordinate legislation, if two interpretations/constructions are possible, the interpretation which is in favour of the beneficiary, is to be adopted and not the other one.

4. Submission, thus, is that if the Government Order dated 16.09.2010 is interpreted in view of the aforesaid legal propositions, the only feasible conclusion which may be drawn is that the appellant-petitioner will be entitled to be given the benefit of Old Pension Scheme after her appointment in the RML Institute.

5. Opposing the prayers made in this Special Appeal, learned Counsel representing the RML Institute as also the learned State Counsel have, in one voice, submitted that the Government Order dated 16.09.2010 is clear which does not require any interpretation in a manner other than which is apparent from a plain reading of the contents thereof. It has been argued on their behalf that admittedly the posts in RML Institute are non-pensionable neither the services in RML Institute are pensionable, hence, the Government Order dated 16.09.2010 does not confer any right upon the appellant-petitioner to claim the benefit of Old Pension Scheme.

6. Further Submission is that the benefit of Old Pension Scheme will be available only to an employee, who on his new appointment after the New Pension Scheme was promulgated, is working against a pensionable post or in a pensionable service and such an employee is appointed, after promulgation of the New Pension Scheme, against a pensionable post or in a pensionable service. Drawing attention of the Court to the date on which the RML Institute came into existence i.e., in June, 2005, it has been argued that no service or post in RML Institute is pensionable, accordingly, the services rendered by the appellant-petitioner on her appointment in RML Institute after having resigned from service at SGPGIMS being non-pensionable, she shall not be entitled to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme.

7. It has, thus, been urged by the learned Counsel for the State as also the learned Counsel representing RML Institute that the Special Appeal is liable