THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
WRIT PETITION NOS.22559, 15644 AND 11398 OF 2023
COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda)
Since the parties and the issue involved in batch of these three writ petitions are common, these three writ petitions are being heard together and disposed by way of this common order.
2. All these three Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 having adopted and implemented the Government of India’s New Pension Scheme and not adopting the guidelines of the Office Memorandum, dated 17.02.2020 issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government of India vide Ref.No.57/04/2019-P & PW (B), and Office Memorandum under Ref.No.57/05/2021- P&PW(B), dated 03.03.2023, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents to adopt and implement the Office Memorandums, dated 17.02.2020 and 03.03.2023, either by adopting or modifying the Telangana State Revised Pension Rules, 1980 or issuing official Memorandum identical to the Government of India Office Memorandums, dated 17.02.2020 and 03.03.2023, so as to give effect to the petitioners.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
3. Petitioners before this Court in W.P.No.22559 of 2023 were appointed and working as Junior Assistant(s), Typist(s) and Personal Assistant(s) in the Unit of District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar District; similarly petitioners in W.P.No.15644 of 2023 were appointed as Junior Assistant(s), Typist(s), Field Assistant(s), Copyist(s) and Attender (s)/Process Server(s) in the unit of District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar District and the petitioners in W.P.No.11398 of 2023 were appointed and working as Junior Assistant(s), Typist(s), Field Assistant(s) and Attender(s)/Process Server(s) in the unit of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad District and the aforesaid Districts are under the control of the High Court for the State of Telangana. All the petitioners were appointed through direct recruitment vide Notification No.1 of 2004, No.2 of 2004, No.5 of 2004, No.6 of 2004 and No.7 of 2004, dated 22.01.2004 and 19.01.2004 respectively, issued by the Unit Head of Mahabubnagar District.
4. For the purpose of disposal of these three writ petitions, the facts in W.P.No.15644 of 2023 are to be taken into consideration, which read thus:
5. It is stated that after conducting written examination for the said posts, due to Administrative reasons during said period, appointment letters were delayed and the same were issued on 18.02.2005, 18.02.2005, 25.05.2004, 18.03.2005, 26.01.2005, 26.01.2005 and 23.04.2005 respectively.
6. It is stated that during relevant period of issuance of aforesaid notifications, the other units of Principal and District Judges, which were under the control of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, also issued notifications for filling up of posts that arose prior to 31.08.2004 those notifications were acted upon and appointment orders were also timely issued and those persons were covered under Old Pension Scheme. But, in the case of combined unit of District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar District, now divided into five units, under the control of respondent Nos.6 to 11, stated that issuance of appointment letters before 31.08.2004 got delayed due to Administrative reasons. As a result the petitioners have lost their valuable right to receive pension under Old Pension Scheme, General Provident Fund etc. However, the persons who got selected under corresponding notifications issued during the similar period in other Units under the control of this Court, got covered under Old Pension Scheme benefits. It is only in the case of the petitioners that such a grave prejudice has been caused. It is further stated that in the writ affidavit that the petitioners have approached appropriate Forums for ventilating their grievance that they are entitled for Old Pension Scheme. But so far their grievance has not been settled.
7. It is stated that in the budget for 2001-2002, the Government of India has announced that all New Pension Schemes based on a defined contribution would be implemented in respect of Central Government Services including All India Services, such as Indian Administrative Services, Indian Police Services, Indian Foreign Service etc., after 01.10.2001. The combined State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana vide its G.O.Ms.No.653, Finance (Pension-I) Department, dated 22.09.2004 have decided to adopt the Government of India’s New Pension Scheme (NPS) based on Defined Contributions for the employees of State, who are newly recruited on or after 01.09.2004. Under the new Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS), each employee has to contribute certain amount and government will contribute certain amount. It is stated that when old pension scheme was prevailed, there was no such contribution required from the employees.
8. While the matter stood thus, taking into consideration various representations/references and decisions of the Courts and after careful analysis of the same, the Government of India, issued clarifications that old pension scheme has to be applied in case of candidates, who were selected prior to 01.01.2004, but their appointments were got delayed due to administrative reasons/constraints.It is further stated that further representations were received by the Government of India, after issuance of officials Memorandum under Reference No.57/04/209-P&PW(B), dated 17.02.2020, from the employees requesting to extend the said benefit of pension on the ground that the appointment made against the posts/vacancies advertised/notified for recruitment prior to notification of National Pension System, were referred to the Judgments of various High Courts and Tribunals. Considering the same, respondent No.5 has issued further clarification by way of official Memorandum under Reference No.57/05/2021-P &PW(B), dated 03.03.2023, stating that matter has been examined in consultation with the Department of Financial Services, Personnel & Training, Expenditure and Legal Affairs in the light of various representations and decisions of the Court and decided that all cases, where the Central Government Civil Employees have been appointed against a post or vacancy which was advertised / notified for recruitment/appointment prior to date of notification for National Pension System i.e., on 22.12.2003 and is are covered under NPS on joining service on or before 01.01.2004, has given one-time option, which has to be covered under the CCS/(Pension) Rules, 1972 (now 2021 Rules). The said option exercised by the Government Servants concerned by 31.08.2023.
9. It is further stated that respondent Nos.1 to 4 having adopted NPS with effect from 01.09.2004, have invariably adopted the necessary corrective measures taken by the Central Government by way of official Memorandum, dated 17.02.2020 and 03.03.2023. It also further stated that when the combined State of Andhra Pradesh adopted Contributory Pension Scheme on 01.09.2004, which was introduced by the Government of India by bringing amendments to Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 vide G.O.MS.No.653, Finance (Pension-I) Department, dated 22.09.2004, there is no bar for the Government of Telangana or the respondents herein to implement the guidelines issued by the Government of India vide Official Memorandum No.57-04/2019-P&PW(B), dated 17.02.2020 and official Memorandum under Reference, dated 03.03.2023. It is also stated that if the said clarifications and amendments were brought in the Telangana State Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the petitioners and several similarly situated persons would come under the purview of old pension scheme. This is because, in case of the petitioners herein, the vacancies in the posts against which they were appointed had arisen prior to 01.09.2004, notifications were also issued prior to 01.09.2004, but unfortunately due to administrative lapses/exigencies on the part of recruiting authority of the concerned Unit alone appointment letters were issued after 01.09.2004 and the said delay was only due to administrative lapses.
10. It is further stated that similarly situated employees of Judicial Department, who were qualified under the same notification issued before 01.09.2004 and received appointment letters prior to that date are currently enjoying the benefits of the old pension scheme. But, in the case of petitioners, if the respondents will implement the guidelines issued vide Memorandum, dated 17.02.2020 and 03.03.2023, the petitioners would get benefit of Old Pension Scheme and General Provident Fund, as the State Government adopted said scheme only from 01.09.2004. It is stated that the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge (Head Quarters) Delhi, in compliance with the said Memorandum, dated 03.03.2023, had issued Circular No.889/11653-12653, dated 05.04.2023, giving opportunity to the employees whose appointments were based on vacancies and notifications issued prior to effective date of NPS.
11. It is further stated that acting upon various representations of several employees including the petitioners, respondent No.2 itself addressed a letter No.166/TLSP/RL/2020, dated 05.06.2020, to respondent No.3 to furnish information in the month of June, 2020 pertaining to the employees of State Judicial Ministerial and Subordinate Services covered by NPS in the prescribed form duly specifying the vacancy arisen prior to 31.08.2004. Basing on that, respondent No.3 called for information from the learned Principal District Judges/Unit Heads vide ROC No.386/2020-C- 1, dated 08.06.2020 and in response to the same, respondent Nos.6 to 11 furnished information to respondent No.3 confirming that the petitioners and others are eligible for old pension scheme. But till date no concrete steps have been taken by the respondents.
12. Lastly, it is contended that in similar circumstances, the Division Bench of High Court of Bombay in Khilari Rajendra Eknath and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others in (W.P.No.2270 of 2021) vide order, dated 28.04.2023 taking into account the Office Memorandum issued by Union Government, 5th respondent, dated 17.02.2020 and also the Office Memorandum, dated 03.03.2023 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions, New Delhi, and also considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various Judgments, directed the petitioners therein shall be governed by the Old Pension Scheme in vogue prior to 01.11.2005, as well as General Provident Fund Scheme.
13. Whereas W.P.No.11398 of 2023 was filed by the petitioners seeking the similar relief sought in W.P.Nos.15644 of 2023. They were appointed as Junior Assistants, Typists, Amin/Field Assistant, Attenders/Process Servers etc in the Unit of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad District against the vacancy that arose before 31.08.2004 pursuant to the Notifications, dated 19.01.2004. They appear for written examination and appointed on 11.07.2005, 06.07.2005 and 19.09.2005 respectively. According to the petitioners, the decision to give appointment letters to petitioners was taken by the respondents prior to 01.09.2004, but due to administrative exigencies, the selection process got delayed and as a result of which, the petitioners have lost their valuable right to receive pension under old pension scheme under corresponding notifications during the similar period. Therefore, the petitioners pray for issuance of a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 4 to adopt and implement the Government of India’s New Pension Scheme and to implement the guidelines of the Official Memorandum, dated 17.02.2020 issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government of India vide Ref.No.57/04/2019-P& PW (B), and official Memorandum under reference No.57/05/2021-P & PW (B), dated 03.03.2023.
14. Per contra, respondent No.1 has decided to adopt New Pension Scheme based on a Defined Contribution’s for the employees of the State, who are newly recruited after 01.09.2004. He further submitted that respondent No.1 has issued further clarification vide Office Memorandum Ref. No.57/05/2021-P & PW (B), dated 03.03.2023, in all cases where the Central Government Civil Employees have been appointed against a post or vacancies, which were advertised / notified for recruitment / appointment, prior to the date of notification for National Pension system i.e., 22.12.2003 and is covered under the National Pension System even though joining in service was on or after 01.01.2004. As these people were given a one time option to be covered under CCS Pension Rules, 1972 (Now 2021). This option exercised by the concerned Government servant by 31.08.2004. It is further stated that respondent No.1 while issuing necessary corrective measures to the National Pension Scheme by way of official memorandum, dated 17.02.2020 and 03.03.2023 has suggested/advised the State Governments also to adopt the same. It is further stated that the issue of adopting Government of India Memorandum by the State Government of Telangana is a policy matter and involves a decision whether to amend the statutory Rules Governing pensions namely the Telangana State Revised Pension Rules, 1980, or not, which is entirely within the purview and domain of the State Government and hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petitions.
15. Heard Sri V.RajaShekar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. M.Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for respondent No.1, Mr.Vivek Jain, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.3, 4, 6 to 11. Perused the entire material on record.
16. The question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is “whether the petitioners are entitled to New Pension Scheme pursuant to the Office Memorandum, dated 17.02.2020, issued by Deputy Secretary to Government of India vide Ref.No.57/04/2019-P &PW(B) and Office Memorandum under reference No.57/05/2021-P&PW(B) dated 03.03.2023 introduced by the Government of India” .
17. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.653, Finance (Pension –I) Department, dated 22.09.2004, stating that in the Budget for 2001-2002, the Government of India has announced that a New Pension Scheme based on Defined Contribution will be introduced to those who enter Central Government service including the All India Services, such as Indian Administrative Service, Indian Police Service and Indian Foreign Service (Defence, Railways, Posts, Telecom, Autonomous Bodies and Scientific Organizations) after 01.10.2001. Further, the then Government of Andhra Pradesh after careful consideration, decided to adopt the Government of India’s New Pension Scheme based on Defined Contributions for the employees of the State, who are newly recruited on or after 01.09.2004. Under the new Contributory Pension Scheme, each employee has to contribute certain amount and Government may contribute certain amount. The New Contributory Pension Scheme is not applicable to the already existing/serving employees of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the amendment was also been made to the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short, ‘the Rules,1980’) by incorporating sub-rule 2 (g) (i) to the Rules,1980, which reads as under:
“In the said Rules, in Part-I after rule 2 (f) the following shall be added, namely:-
“(g)(i) These rules shall not apply to all the Government Servants appointed on or after 01.09.2004, to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State which are borne on pensionable establishment, whether temporary, or permanent.
(ii) These rules shall not apply to all appointments, whether temporary or permanent, made on or after 01.09.2004 in all the State Public Sector Undertakings, whose pay and allowances are drawn from the Consolidated Fund of the State or not.
(iii) These rules shall not apply to all appointments, whether temporary or permanent, made on or after 01.09.2004 of all the tiers of the Rural and Urban Local Bodies such as the Gram Panchayats, MandalParishads, ZillaParishads, Municipalities, Municipal Corporations, Urban Development Authorities ,Co- operative and Urban Local Bodies, ZillaGrandhalayaSamsthas, Agriculture Marketing Committees, including all the Universities in the State, including all the Institutions functioning under the Universities, whose pay and allowances are drawn from the Consolidated Fund of the State or not.
(iv) These Rules shall not apply to appointments, whether temporary or permanent made on or after 01.09.2004 into all the Institutions receiving Grant-in- Aid from the Government.
(v) These Rules shall not apply to appointments, whether temporary or permanent, made on or after 01.09.2004 to all Co-operative Institutions, Autonomous Corporations, whose pay and allowances are drawn from the Consolidated Fund of the State or not.”
18. With the above factual background, as it is seen that the said G.O. being applicable to all the institutions including the High Court for the State of Telangana and which is also applicable to entire District Judiciary. The petitioners before this Court were appointed under different Notifications, different cadres in the unit of District Judiciary under the control of the High Court for the State of Telangana and the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners are presently working in the units of the District Judiciary, which are under the Control of the High Court of State of Telangana.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the Notification, dated 19.01.2004, issued by District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, does not mention about the applicability of pension scheme. However, it is alleged that the appointment letters issued by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, stated that the candidates appointed to the respective posts are covered by the contributory pension scheme and the existing pension scheme as per A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 would not apply to them as per the instructions issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.655, dated 22.09.2004.
20. He further submitted that the combined State of Andhra Pradesh had adopted Contributory Pension Scheme on 01.09.2004, which was introduced by the Government of India by amendment to Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 vide G.O.Ms.No.653, dated 22.09.2004. Therefore, there is no bar for the respondents to implement the guidelines issued by the Government of India vide Office Memorandums, dated 17.02.2020 and 03.03.2023. He also further submitted that in case of similarly situated employees of other units of Judicial Department, who were qualified pursuant to the Notification issued prior to 01.09.2004 and whose posting letters were issued prior to 01.09.2004 and they are taking the old pension scheme but, in case of petitioners, due to administrative reasons, they would not get the benefit of old pension scheme and General Provident Fund Scheme as their appointment order is subsequent to 01.09.2004 and hence, he prays to implement the Office Memorandums, dated 17.02.2020 and 03.03.2023.
21. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for respondent No.1 vehemently argued that the applicability of the Pension Scheme is not mentioned in the notification, dated 19.01.2004 issued by District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, but the same was mentioned in the individual appointment letters that the candidates appointed to post is covered by Contributory Pension Scheme and the existing pension scheme as per A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 will not be applicable to them as per the instructions issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.655, dated 22.09.2004. She further contended that the petitioners having knowledge about non applicability of the provisions of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Now they cannot claim that their appointments are subject to applicability of old pension scheme. As a result their claim for applicability of the old scheme is not acceptable. He further contended that the said Office Memorandum, dated 17.02.2020 and G.O.Ms.No.655, dated 22.09.2004 are subsequent to the Office Memorandum, dated 03.03.2023 which was not adopted by the Government of Telangana. Therefore, the respondents case is that these office Memorandum were not adopted by Government of Telangana, which is issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government of India vide Ref.No.57/04/2019-P&PW(B), wherein at Paragraph No.4, it was held was under:
“The matter has been examined in consultation with the Department of Personnel & Training Department of Expenditure and Department of Legal Affairs in the light of the various representations/references and decisions of the Courts in this regard. It has been decided that in all cases where the results for recruitment were declared before 01.01.2004 against vacancies occurring on or before 31.12.2003, the candidates declared successful for recruitment shall be eligible for coverage under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Accordingly, such Government servants who were declared successful for recruitment in the results declared on or before 31.12.2003 against vacancies occurring before 01.01.2004 and are covered under the National Pension System on joining service on or after 01.0.2004, may be given a one-time option to be covered under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. This option may be exercised by the concerned Government servants latest by 31.05.2020.”
Accordingly, the Government servants who were declared successful for recruitment in the results declared on or before 31.12.2003 against vacancies occurring before 01.01.2004 and are covered under the National Pension System but have joined service on or after 01.01.2004 may be given one time option to be covered under the CCS Pension rules, 1972. This option may be exercised by the concerned Government servants not later than 31.05.2020, the option so exercised shall be final. Furthermore, in paragraph No.5 of the said office Memorandum, stated that those Government servants who are eligible to exercise option in accordance with paragraph No.4 above, and whoever did not exercised this option by the stipulated date, shall continue to be covered by the National Pension System.
22. Further, the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare vide Office Memorandum dated 03.03.2023 has issued certain guidelines mainly applicability of the Old Pension Scheme by providing them opportunity to exercise their one time option the relevant paragraphs are extracted below:
“3.Representations have been received in this Department from the Government servants appointed on or after 01.01.2004 requesting for extending the benefit of the pension scheme under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (now 2021) on the ground that their appointment was made against the posts/vacancies advertised/notified for recruitment prior to notification for National Pension System, referring to court judgments of various Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal allowing such benefits to applicants.
4. The matter has been examined in consultation with the Department of Financial Services, Department of Personnel & Training, Department of Expenditure and Department of Legal Affairs in the light of the various representations/references and decisions of the Courts in this regard. It has now been decided that, in all cases where the Central Government Civil employee has been appointed against a post or vacancy which was advertised/notified for recruitment/appointment, prior to the date of notification for National Pension System i.e., 22.12.2003 and is covered under the National Pension System on joining service on or after 01.01.2004, may be given a one-time option to be covered under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (now 2021). This option may be exercised by the concerned Government servants latest by 31.08.2023.
23. In the present case, admittedly amendment of Rule 2(g) (i) to the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 come into force on 01.09.2004. In all cases where the Central Government Civil employee have been appointed against a post or vacancy which was advertised/notified for recruitment/appointment, prior to the date of notification for National Pension System i.e., 22.12.2003 and is covered under the National Pension System on joining service on or after 01.01.2004, may be given a one-time option to be covered under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (now 2021). Further, the Notifications, dated 19.01.2004 and 22.05.2004, issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, were prior to date of applicability of the said amendment i.e., 01.09.2004, the process was done after 01.09.2004 so far as the order of appointments is concerned. It appears that the entire process got delayed for the reasons best known to the respondents. Even otherwise Notification was issued on 19.01.2004, obviously at best, it might have communicated much prior to 01.09.2004 as entire process has took place for about 7 to 8 months and the petitioners were selected in the month of July, 2005 and they were posted in various departments and the entire selection process has taken place much prior to
11.07.2005. The said vacancies which is said to have been notified would be much prior to the date of 31.12.2003 though notification was subsequent to 01.01.2004. In respect of the vacancies that arose on or after 01.01.2004 New Pension Scheme would not apply to the candidates as very amendment to A.P.Revised Pension Rules,1980 is made applicable only to the appointments by temporary, which had made on or after 01.09.2004.
24. In the present case, though appointment letters were issued subsequent to 01.09.2004, the entire process of recruitment was made after 01.09.2004 much prior to September 2004. Therefore, the vacancies notified would pertain to those that arose before 31.12.2003. As such the contention of the petitioners holds good and this bench has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the appointments which made in respect of the present notifications the applicability to the New Pension Scheme cannot be accepted and the petitioners who are appointed under said notifications and whose vacancies arose much prior to 31.12.2003 would squarely fall within the purview of A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980.
25. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Khilari Rajendra Eknath and others v. the State of Maharashtra and others (W.P.No.2270 of 2021), dated 24.04.2023 ¸wherein the High Court of Bombay held that the provisions of Old Pension Scheme are required to be applicable in respect of vacancies which arose prior to 01.01.2004 and placed reliance on the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India on 03.03.2023 giving one time option to the Central Government employees who’s results were declared successful for the said recruitment on or before 31.12.2003 as against the vacancies which occurred before 01.09.2004. The High Court of Bombay by relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avinaah Singh v. Union of India1 and Parmanand Yadav v. Union of India2, while allowing the writ petition observed that the petitioners therein will be governed by the provisions of the Old Pension Scheme in vogue prior to 01.11.2005, as well as General Provident Fund Scheme. Further, the petitioners shall not be governed by the provisions of the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme introduced vide G.R., dated 31.10.2005. The petitioners’ contribution to DCPS be credited to their GPF (2011) SCC Online Del 2432 (2015) SCC Online Del 7274 Accounts. The modalilties as suggested in paragraph No.8 of the Office Memorandum, dated 03.03.2003 issued by the Government of India shall be adopted while switching over petitioners from DCPS to Old Pension Scheme. In Prafulla Kumar Swain Etc. v. Prakash Chandra Misra and others3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the recruitment cannot tantamount to appointment. Basing on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shivaji Nagnath Lokare and others v. State of Maharashtra and others4, it was observed that the appointment cannot be read to include the words ‘selection, recruitment or recruitment process’ . Pursuant to the entire material on record, this bench is of the opinion that the petitioners would fall within the ‘Old Pension Scheme’ and New Pension Scheme will not be applicable for the reason that the entire selection process had commenced prior to 01.09.2004 and continued till 02.08.2005. Admittedly, the said notification is pertaining to vacancies that arose prior to 30.12.2003, as such, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to be considered under Old Pension Scheme and the A.P.Revised Pension Rules would be applicable.
26. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out and brought to the notice of this Court regarding the letter, dated 08.06.2020 addressed by the Registrar (Administration), to all the learned Principal District Judges/Unit Heads calling for information pertaining to employees covered by National Pension System (CPS) in the prescribed proforma, which reads as under:
“Adverting to the subject and reference cited, I am to request you to furnish the information pertaining to employees of State Judicial Ministerial and Subordinate Services covered by National Pension System (CPS), in the prescribed proforma (enclosed herewith) by return FAX for onward transmission of the same to the Secretary to Government, Law (LA, LA & J) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.”
27. The opinion of this bench is that the case of the petitioners herein would fall within the Old Pension Scheme. But considering the fact that there is no information submitted by either of the respondents in respect of opportunity being given to the petitioners to exercise their options, we feel it desirable and appropriate that the respondents shall seek options as a one time measure from all the petitioners, who are covered under the present writ petitions and any other employees who are recruited and whose selection process was commenced prior to 01.09.2004 as against the vacancies which had arisen much prior to 31.12.2003. Consequently respondents shall take further steps accordingly and make applicability of the relevant pension rules to the petitioners as opted by them, which are applicable to them as per the Judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Khilari Rajendra Eknath’s case (supra). It is further directed that the entire exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
28. With the above observations, these three Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
26. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out and brought to the notice of this Court regarding the letter, dated 08.06.2020 addressed by the Registrar (Administration), to all the learned Principal District Judges/Unit Heads calling for information pertaining to employees covered by National Pension System (CPS) in the prescribed proforma, which reads as under:
“Adverting to the subject and reference cited, I am to request you to furnish the information pertaining to employees of State Judicial Ministerial and Subordinate Services covered by National Pension System (CPS), in the prescribed proforma (enclosed herewith) by return FAX for onward transmission of the same to the Secretary to Government, Law (LA, LA & J) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.”
27. The opinion of this bench is that the case of the petitioners herein would fall within the Old Pension Scheme. But considering the fact that there is no information submitted by either of the respondents in respect of opportunity being given to the petitioners to exercise their options, we feel it desirable and appropriate that the respondents shall seek options as a one time measure from all the petitioners, who are covered under the present writ petitions and any other employees who are recruited and whose selection process was commenced prior to 01.09.2004 as against the vacancies which had arisen much prior to 31.12.2003. Consequently respondents shall take further steps accordingly and make applicability of the relevant pension rules to the petitioners as opted by them, which are applicable to them as per the Judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Khilari Rajendra Eknath’s case (supra). It is further directed that the entire exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
28. With the above observations, these three Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
