Appointment after implementation of New Pension Scheme precludes entitlement to Old Pension Scheme benefits.

The petitioner appeared for the 24th Bihar Judicial Service Examination notified in 1990 and was included in the merit list after an interview in 1994

Due to pending litigation (SLP before the Supreme Court) and administrative reasons, his appointment was delayed

He was finally appointed as a Munsif via notification dated 07.03.2006 and joined service thereafter

In the interim, the Government of Bihar transitioned from the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) to the New Pension Scheme (NPS) effective from 01.01.2004

Upon superannuation, the petitioner sought conversion from NPS to OPS, arguing that his selection process related to vacancies from 1990—long before the cut-off date—and the delay in joining was not his fault

1. Whether a judicial officer appointed after 01.01.2004, but selected against vacancies advertised in 1990, is entitled to the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme.

The Court applied the administrative policy of the Government of Bihar which discontinued the Old Pension Scheme for all employees appointed on or after 01.01.2004

It further relied on the doctrine of stare decisis regarding the Division Bench precedent in Baij Nath Ram v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 11323 of 2021), which established that the date of appointment/joining, rather than the date of advertisement or vacancy, is the determining factor for pension scheme eligibility

The Court reasoned that the petitioner’s appointment in 2006 post-dated the implementation of the NPS (01.01.2004).

Although the petitioner argued that the delay was due to administrative hurdles and litigation beyond his control, the Court observed that he was appointed against a non-joining vacancy specifically in compliance with a court order at a time when the NPS was already in force

The Court rejected the petitioner's attempt to distinguish his case from the precedent in Baij Nath Ram, finding that the material facts—appointment pursuant to the 24th Judicial Service Examination notified after the cut-off date—were identical

The Court held that since the petitioner was governed by the NPS since his inception into service, he could not claim a retrospective shift to OPS after retirement

The High Court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit, affirming that the petitioner is governed by the New Pension Scheme