Extension of joining time with official permission preserves eligibility for the Old Pension Scheme under single-batch selection.

The Respondent (writ petitioner) was appointed as a District Audit Officer via an appointment order dated 04.05.2005 following a 2000 advertisement

Being already in government service in Uttar Pradesh, he sought and was granted extensions by the Bihar Government to join, ultimately joining on 16.09.2005

Meanwhile, the State implemented the New Pension Scheme (NPS) effective from 01.09.2005

Despite his batchmates being covered under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), the Respondent was placed under NPS because his actual joining occurred after the cutoff

The General Administration Department rejected his representation for OPS on 18.03.2024, asserting the delay was not due to administrative reasons but personal requests

The learned Single Judge set aside this rejection on 30.08.2024, prompting this State appeal

1. Whether an employee whose appointment order was issued prior to 01.09.2005, but who joined after said date due to authorized extensions, is entitled to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme

2. Whether the Respondent’s case satisfies the criteria for switching from NPS to OPS as laid down in the Finance Department’s Resolution dated 28.11.2023

State Finance Department’s Resolution No. 1206(PE) dated 28.11.2023, which allows employees appointed after 01.09.2005 to opt for the Old Pension Scheme if: (i) the vacancy/advertisement predates 01.09.2005, (ii) the selection was completed before that date, and (iii) some candidates from the same merit list joined before the cutoff and received OPS benefits

Principles of non-discrimination and parity among batchmates established in Md. Kayumuddin Ansari v. State of Bihar and Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar

The Division Bench observed that the Respondent’s appointment process strictly adhered to the conditions of the 2023 Resolution. It noted that the vacancy, advertisement, and final selection were all finalized well before the 01.09.2005 cutoff

since the Respondent’s extension of time to join was formally sanctioned by the authorities to allow him to participate in other competitive exams, the "delay" could not be used as a tool to deprive him of pensionary benefits

The court highlighted the arbitrariness in denying OPS to the Respondent while granting it to 12 other batchmates from the same merit list (where the Respondent ranked 11th), concluding that the date of joining is a fortuitous circumstance that should not override the date of appointment for pension eligibility

The court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order. The Court directed the Appellants to process the Respondent’s option for OPS and communicate the formal order within two months. All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of