Absence of definitive policy on pre-absorption service warrants State reconsideration of pensionary eligibility and determinative appointment dates.

The respondents were initially appointed as Shikshakarmis between 1998–1999 under the MP/CG Panchayat Rules.

They were subsequently regularized and absorbed into the School Education Department of the State Government on 01.07.2018.

A dispute arose when their service period as Shikshakarmis was not counted for pensionary benefits, and their representations were rejected via an administrative order dated 16.02.2021.

The respondents filed writ petitions seeking recognition of their prior service for the Old Pension Scheme (OPS).

A Single Judge disposed of the petitions on 17.02.2026, directing the State to reconsider the "determinative date of appointment" for pension purposes without granting a positive mandamus.

The State appealed this direction, arguing that the issue was settled and barred by delay/laches.

1. Whether the Single Judge erred in directing the State to reconsider a policy matter regarding the determinative date of appointment for pensionary benefits after the claims had been rejected.

2. Whether the direction for reconsideration violates the principles of judicial discipline or the doctrine preventing the revival of "stale" or "dead" claims.

The Court considered the principles of "consideration jurisprudence" and the finality of claims as laid down in Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar (2010), which holds that stale claims should not be revived through directions to consider representations.

The Court referred to Chief Executive Officer v. S. Lalita (2025) and Mahendra Prasad Agrawal v. Arvind Kumar Singh (2026), which deprecate routinely directing reconsideration without adjudicating merits.

Regarding judicial discipline, it applied the rule from Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra (2005) and Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (1989), stating that a Bench must adhere to precedents of equal or higher strength.

The Division Bench observed that the Single Judge did not issue a positive mandamus to grant pension, but rather required a "reasoned reconsideration" in light of the State's own restoration of the Old Pension Scheme via notifications in 2022 and 2023.

The Court found that the direction was not a revival of a "stale" individual claim under M.K. Sarkar, but a directive to resolve a systemic ambiguity affecting a large class of employees with continuing civil consequences.

The Court noted the Single Judge expressly preserved the State’s executive prerogative by stating that policy formulation remains the State's exclusive domain, provided it is clear and constitutionally compliant.

The Court held there was no breach of judicial discipline regarding the Har Narayan Yadav precedent, as the Single Judge did not disregard the ruling but merely facilitated a structured decision-making process for the new OPS framework.

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming the Single Judge's order, and the State remains free to consider delay, laches, and its financial affidavits while passing the mandated speaking order.