An employee appointed prior to the cut-off date of 01.04.2003 for the New Pension Scheme is entitled to the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme, regardless of the actual date of joining, provided the delay in joining was not due to the employee's default.

ORDER

The petitioner who is a retired Post Graduate Assistant, has filed the above writ petition seeking a mandamus to the respondents to bring her under the Tamil Nadu Old Pension Rules, 1978.

2. The petitioner would submit that pursuant to the advertisement for the post of B.T., Assistant and Block Resource Educator, issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB) on 11.02.2002, she was allotted to the Education Department by Memo of the TRB dated 17.03.2003. Subsequently, she was issued with the appointment order on 26.03.2004, and was allowed to join in the post of Block Resource Teacher Educator at Block Resource Centre, Vellore Rural, Vellore District. Thereafter, she had joined the post on 01.04.2003 within the time prescribed in her appointment order. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.259 Finance (Pension) Department dated 06.08.2003 had amended the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and brought in the New Pension Rules viz., Contributory Pension Scheme to the Government Employees with effect from 01.04.2003.

3. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Post Graduate Assistant on

12.10.2007 and had retired on 31.05.2025 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner was brought under New Pension Scheme and was denied of the benefits under Old Pension Scheme. The petitioner therefore submitted a representation to the respondents on 21.04.2025 to treat her under the Old Pension Rules and to grant her all terminal benefits. However, there was no response from the respondents. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that she was selected by TRB on

17.03.2003 and was issued with the appointment order dated 26.03.2003 for the post of Block Resource Teachers Educator and was granted one week time to join duty. Accordingly the petitioner had joined the services on 01.04.2003. Since the petitioner was issued with the appointment order on 26.03.2003 and had joined the service on 01.04.2003, within one week time given to her, the joining date should not take away the right accrued to her. Therefore, the pettioner contends that taking into account that the appointment order issued to her on 26.03.2003, she would fall under the Old Pension Scheme and not under the New Pension Scheme which has taken effect from 01.04.2003.

5.Heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed on record.

6. The defense that has been put forward is that the New Pension Scheme had come into effect on 01.04.2003. As on the date when the petitioner had joined duty, it was the New Pension Scheme viz., Contributory Pension Scheme, which was in vogue. The said argument is no longer res integra in the light of the judgment of W.A.No.2903 of 2025 (as against W.P.No.31603 of

2018).

7. A similar situation as the instant case is found before the Bench in

2013. The writ petitioner therein who was issued with appointment order on 26.03.2003, was issued with a revised posting order on 24.04.2003 and the petitioner had reported for duty on 28.04.2003. The writ petitioner therein however was brought under the Contributory Pension Scheme. Challenging the same, the writ petition in W.P.No.31603 of 2018 has been filed, which was allowed by the Single Judge directing the respondents to bring the petitioner therein under General Provident Fund and Pension Scheme. The State had preferred an appeal in W.A.No.2903 of 2025 as against the order in W.P.No.31603 of 2018.

8. The Division Bench relying upon the judgement of this Court in W.A.No.3401 of 2024 [State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009 and another Vs. Dr.Meenakshi Vijayakumar], has observed as follows in W.A.No.2903 of 2025 :

“10. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides, we find that, the issue raised in the present appeal has already been given a