Deemed appointment date granted for selection processes completed before New Pension Scheme cut-off to ensure pensionary benefits.

The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Advocate General following an advertisement on February 10, 2002.

The selection process, including the screening test and interviews, was conducted by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (HPPSC) between October and December 2002.

On February 22, 2003, the petitioner was recommended for appointment, and he was notified of this on March 4, 2003.

However, the State abolished several posts in April 2003, leading to litigation.

The posts were eventually revived in 2008, and the petitioner was offered appointment on December 30, 2008.

Consequently, he was placed under the New Pension Scheme (NPS), which came into force on May 15, 2003.

The petitioner sought to be covered under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (Old Pension Scheme), arguing that the recruitment process was completed before the NPS was implemented.

1. Whether a candidate can be denied the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme due to a delay in the issuance of an appointment letter by the Department when the selection process was completed prior to the implementation of the New Pension Scheme.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a deemed date of appointment for the limited purpose of pensionary benefits to maintain parity with other posts filled under the same advertisement.

The Court relied on established principles that a candidate wrongly deprived of an appointment is entitled to notional seniority from the date they should have been appointed.

It specifically applied the precedent of Satish Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (CWP No. 3435 of 2020), which held that delays in the selection process should not disadvantage selected candidates regarding pensionary benefits.

Further, it drew upon the Supreme Court’s rulings in Sanjay Dhar v. J&K Public Service Commission (2000) regarding retroactive appointment benefits when a candidate is not at fault for the delay.

The Court observed that the HPPSC had completed the recruitment process and recommended the petitioner by February/March 2003, well before the NPS cut-off date of May 15, 2003.

The delay in appointment (from 2003 to 2008) resulted from the State's administrative decisions to abolish and subsequently revive posts, which was an "act of omission and commission" by the Department.

The Court reasoned that the petitioner had a legitimate expectation to be governed by the rules in vogue at the time of recruitment.

To emphasize the unfairness, the Court noted that another post (Deputy Advocate General) advertised in the same notification was filled promptly in 2002, granting that incumbent the Old Pension Scheme.

Therefore, the administrative delay could not act as a deterrent to the petitioner's rights.

This deemed date is granted solely for the purpose of bringing the petitioner under the ambit of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (Old Pension Scheme).

The Court clarified that no other benefits, such as actual arrears of pay, seniority, or pay fixation, would accrue from this retrospective date.

The respondents were directed to grant the petitioner the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme and GPF Rules.