Administrative delay in issuing appointment letters cannot deprive employees of Old Pension Scheme benefits.

The petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Home Science pursuant to Advertisement No. 91/1998 issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC).

Although the BPSC recommended her for appointment on 11.02.1999, the state failed to issue an appointment letter, leading her to file C.W.J.C. No. 4223 of 2000.

Following a court direction in 2006, she was finally appointed and joined on 07.07.2006.

Because her joining occurred after the introduction of the New Pension Scheme (NPS) on 01.09.2005, she was enrolled under NPS.

On 28.11.2023, the Finance Department issued a Resolution (Memo No. 1206(P)) allowing employees appointed via advertisements issued prior to 01.09.2005 to opt for the Old Pension Scheme (OPS).

The petitioner's claim for OPS was rejected on 25.07.2024 by Respondent No. 2 because she could not prove that any other teacher from the same 1998 advertisement had received OPS benefits.

1. Whether an employee appointed pursuant to an advertisement issued prior to 01.09.2005 can be denied the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme solely due to administrative delays in appointment.

2. Whether the requirement to prove that "similarly situated employees under the same advertisement received the benefit" is a valid prerequisite for extending OPS benefits under the Government Resolution dated 28.11.2023.

Government of Bihar, Finance Department Resolution contained in Memo No. 1206(P) dated 28.11.2023, which provides a one-time option for coverage under the Old Pension Scheme for employees whose recruitment advertisements were published before the NPS cut-off date of 01.09.2005.

The principle of non-discrimination and equity as established in The State of Bihar Ors. v. Ganpati Singh (L.P.A. No. 204 of 2014), holding that administrative lapses or litigation delays cannot deprive an employee of pensionary benefits they would have otherwise earned.

The Court observed that the petitioner was recommended for appointment in 1999, well before the NPS cut-off, but her appointment was delayed until 2006 solely due to "administrative inaction and laches" by the State.

The Court rejected the State's argument that the petitioner must show a peer under the same advertisement received OPS, noting that the Resolution dated 28.11.2023 does not stipulate such a condition.

The Court highlighted that candidates from Advertisement No. 92/1998 (issued the same day as the petitioner's) were granted OPS because their appointments were processed faster, making the denial to the petitioner arbitrary and discriminatory.

The Court held that the petitioner's eligibility must be tested against the Resolution's criteria—namely the advertisement date—rather than the fortuity of her peers' appointment dates.

The Court set aside the order dated 25.07.2024 and allowed the writ petition.

Respondent No. 2 was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for OPS coverage under Memo No. 1206(P) and extend all consequential benefits within twelve weeks.