The determination of pension eligibility dates for absorbed employees remains unclear, warranting state policy reform to ensure consistent application of pension rights.

1. Heard Mr. Anup Majumdar, Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Mr. Ishan Verma, Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Mr. Pankaj Kamlesh holding brief of Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Mr. Ravish Verma as well as Ms. Monika Thakur, learned counsel for the respective petitioners. Also heard Mr. Anand Dadariya, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State as well as Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta and Ms. Mamta Gendle holding brief of Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents.

2. Since a common question of law and facts arises for consideration in all these writ petitions, the same were clubbed together, heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order, so as to avoid repetition of facts and to ensure uniformity and consistency in adjudication.

3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, WPS No. 647 of 2021 has been treated as the lead case, and the facts, pleadings and reliefs stated therein are being referred to for the purpose of adjudication of all the connected matters, unless specifically stated otherwise.

4. The common grievance raised by the petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions is not confined to an individual or isolated service dispute, but stems from a systemic and unresolved uncertainty in the State’s executive approach towards determination of pensionary entitlement of employees whose service trajectory spans the pre- and post-New Pension Scheme period. The petitioners were initially engaged as Shikshakarmis prior to the introduction of the New Pension Scheme, their services were subsequently regularised and thereafter absorbed into the School Education Department, thereby giving rise to a complex service continuum which has not been adequately addressed through any uniform or authoritative policy decision of the State Government.

5. The petitioners contend that despite restoration of the Old Pension Scheme by the State Government through Gazette Notifications dated 11.05.2022 and 20.01.2023, the foundational issue governing applicability of the pension regime remains unresolved, namely, the determination of the relevant “date of appointment” for pensionary purposes. In the absence of clarity as to whether such date is to be reckoned from the initial engagement, regularisation, confirmation or absorption, similarly situated employees are being subjected to unequal treatment, inconsistent administrative decisions and divergent interpretations across departments, thereby defeating the principles of uniformity, certainty and fairness in public service administration.

6. The grievance of the petitioners is further aggravated by the fact that executive authorities have, at different points of time, adopted shifting and mutually inconsistent stands regarding pension applicability, resulting in the issuance of orders such as the impugned order dated 16.02.2021, without there being a settled policy framework or a definitive determination by the competent authority. This has left the petitioners in a state of perpetual uncertainty with respect to their pensionary rights, exposing them to arbitrary administrative outcomes and avoidable litigation.

7. In essence, the petitioners do not seek an immediate judicial determination of individual pension entitlement, but raise a collective grievance regarding the absence of a clear, reasoned and uniform executive decision governing employees similarly circumstanced as them. The grievance is therefore institutional rather than individual, and is directed towards securing pol