1. Retired judge seeks revised pension under Old Pension Scheme after being inadvertently placed under New Pension Scheme. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 303
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P.Sam Koshy, Narsing Rao Nandikonda, JJ.
Justice G.Sri Devi - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi and others - Respondents
W.P.No.39063 of 2025
Decided On : 16-03-2026
Important Points
A judicial officer is entitled to the Old Pension Scheme if they exercised that option during initial service, provided they refund any contributions received under the Contributory Pension Scheme after approval from the competent authority.
Subject
Service Law - Pension
Headnote
(A) Service Law - Pension - Old Pension Scheme vs. Contributory Pension Scheme - Former High Court Judge - Entitlement to pension based on option exercised during initial service as a judicial officer in another state - Inadvertent notification under New Pension Scheme resulting in reduced pension - Refund of contributions under the New Pension Scheme as a condition for implementation of the Old Pension Scheme - Once entitlement is approved by the competent authority, corrected pension and arrears must be paid. (Paras 4, 5, 7)
Facts of the case:
A former judge of a High Court, who had previously served as a judicial officer and judge in another state, was erroneously placed under the Contributory Pension Scheme upon transfer to the state where she eventually retired. This resulted in a significantly lower pension payment than the entitlement under the Old Pension Scheme. Upon scrutiny by the State and the Accountant General, the entitlement to the Old Pension Scheme was recognized based on the option exercised during the initial service. The petitioner subsequently refunded the contributions received under the New Pension Scheme.
Findings of Court:
The Accountant General issued an order granting approval and sanction for the pension under the Old Pension Scheme, including the calculation of arrears due from the date of superannuation.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive pension under the Old Pension Scheme instead of the Contributory Pension Scheme based on the option exercised at the start of her judicial service.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a judicial officer is entitled to the Old Pension Scheme based on options exercised during their initial service, an error in notification under the New Pension Scheme may be corrected upon the refund of incorrect contributions and the grant of approval by the competent authority.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions to implement the pension under the Old Pension Scheme within an outer limit of eight weeks.
Facts of the case:
A former judge of a High Court, who had previously served as a judicial officer and judge in another state, was erroneously placed under the Contributory Pension Scheme upon transfer to the state where she eventually retired. This resulted in a significantly lower pension payment than the entitlement under the Old Pension Scheme. Upon scrutiny by the State and the Accountant General, the entitlement to the Old Pension Scheme was recognized based on the option exercised during the initial service. The petitioner subsequently refunded the contributions received under the New Pension Scheme.
Findings of Court:
The Accountant General issued an order granting approval and sanction for the pension under the Old Pension Scheme, including the calculation of arrears due from the date of superannuation.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive pension under the Old Pension Scheme instead of the Contributory Pension Scheme based on the option exercised at the start of her judicial service.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a judicial officer is entitled to the Old Pension Scheme based on options exercised during their initial service, an error in notification under the New Pension Scheme may be corrected upon the refund of incorrect contributions and the grant of approval by the competent authority.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions to implement the pension under the Old Pension Scheme within an outer limit of eight weeks.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Petitioner Counsel: Paida Pratik Reddy
Respondent Counsel: B. Narsimha Sarma (Additional Solicitor General of India); (Ms.) M. Shalini (Government Pleader for Services-II); M. Murali
Advocate Appeared:
Petitioner Counsel: Paida Pratik Reddy
Respondent Counsel: B. Narsimha Sarma (Additional Solicitor General of India); (Ms.) M. Shalini (Government Pleader for Services-II); M. Murali
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claimed entitlement under Old Pension Scheme; respondents accepted entitlement after scrutiny and processed refund. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. Court noted respondents accepted petitioner's entitlement and granted approval for pension under Old Pension Scheme. (Para 7 , 8 )
4. A retired employee who exercised option for Old Pension Scheme is entitled to it upon refund of contributions under New Pension Scheme. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
5. Writ petition disposed of directing implementation of pension approval within eight weeks; no order as to costs. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. What is the legal effect of inadvertently enrolling an employee under the New Pension Scheme when entitled to the Old Pension Scheme?
The employee is entitled to revert to the Old Pension Scheme upon refunding contributions received under the New Pension Scheme. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
ORDER :
P.Sam Koshy, J.
Mr. Paida Pratik Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.B.Narsimha Sarma, learned Additional Solicitor General of India (ASGI) for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Ms.M.Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-II for respondent No.3 and Mr.M.Murali, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the record.
2. The instant is a writ petition which has been filed by a former Judge of this High Court seeking for an appropriate direction to respondent Nos.3 to 6 for granting pension at the revised pension payable to the petitioner under the Old Pension Scheme.
3. The petitioner was originally a Judicial Officer under the State of Uttar Pradesh. On the basis of seniority, she was further elevated as Hon’ble Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018. The petitioner was subsequently transferred to the High Court for the State of Telangana on 02.05.2019 where she assumed charge on 15.05.2019 and on attaining the age of superannuation, she demitted the office on 09.10.2022.
4. Since the petitioner retired from the High Court for the State of Telangana, she was entitled for retiral/pensionary benefits from the State of Telangana. The petitioner was entitled for pension under the Old Pension Scheme as long as she was working as Judicial officer at the initial stage and subsequently also as Hon’ble Judge of Allahabad High Court. However, since she assumed charge in the High Court for the State of Telangana, inadvertently she was notified under the Contributory Pension Scheme or under the New Pension Scheme. In the process, on retirement, the petitioner was being paid a paltry sum of around Rs.17,500/- per month towards pension as against her actual entitlement of Rs.1,12,500/- under the Old Pension Scheme. It is for this reason the present writ petition was filed after repeated correspondences made by the petitioner when it could not fetch any positive results.
5. After issuing notice to the respondents, both the State of Telangana as also the office of the Account General scrutinized the claim of the petitioner and finally found that, in fact, the petitioner was actually entitled for pension under the Old Pension Scheme in terms of the option that she had exercised while serving in the State of Uttar Pradesh. As for the benefit that the petitioner in between had received under the Contributory Pension Scheme, she was supposed to make the refund and the contributions which stood credited with the HDFC Bank also had to be returned back to the State treasury enabling the department to process her claim for the pension under the Old Pension Scheme. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, in fact, has repaid the whole of the contribution she has received. Likewise, the learned Government Pleader for Services II has also stated that the money with the HDFC bank has also been paid back to the Government.
6. On the previous date of hearing, the State of Telangana had represented and stated that they have already made the correspondences principally accepting the entitlement of the petitioner and have made a suitable correspondence with the High Court for the State of Telangana which, in turn, had made the necessary correspondence to the office of the Principal Accountant General.
7. The learned ASGI, assisted by the learned counsel appearing for the Accountant General, today produced order dated 13.03.2026 issued to the Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs (Department of Justice), New Delhi granting approval and sanction so far as the pension payable to the petitioner under the Old Pension Scheme is concerned and also granting calculation of pension which the petitioner would be entitled for, including all the arrears the petitioner would be entitled for from the date of her superannuation till date. The learned ASGI further submitted that since the present order from the office of the Accountant General had been issued by speed post o
