Late-joined employees selected under pre-2005 processes are entitled to Old Pension Scheme benefits despite appointment delays.

The petitioners applied for the post of Mandals following a September 1998 advertisement

They were included in a select list published on June 19, 1999

While 23 candidates were appointed initially, the petitioners were excluded due to an alleged ban on appointments

Following multiple rounds of litigation (WP(C) No. 9294/2004 and a subsequent review), the Gauhati High Court directed the authorities to appoint them once the ban was lifted

Consequently, they were appointed on December 21, 2005

Meanwhile, the Government of Assam introduced a New Pension Scheme (NPS) effective February 1, 2005

In a previous proceeding (WP(C) No. 5072/2007), the Court had already observed that the petitioners should be covered by the Old Pension Scheme as their selection preceded the NPS

Despite these observations and subsequent administrative reports justifying their claim, the State failed to formalize their transition to the Old Pension Scheme

1. Whether the petitioners, selected in 1999 but appointed in December 2005 due to administrative delays, are entitled to benefits under the Assam Service (Pension) Rules, 1969 (Old Pension Scheme) instead of the New Pension Rules

2. Whether the "New Pension Scheme" applies to candidates whose recruitment process commenced and selection was finalized prior to the scheme’s implementation date of February 1, 2005

the norms or rules existing on the date the selection process begins apply to the entire process unless amended rules provide for retrospective operation (State of Bihar v. Mithilesh Kumar (2010) 13 SCC 467)

delays in appointment not attributable to the candidates cannot disentitle them from Old Pension Scheme benefits (Sanjay Kumar v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 7369/2021)

while the State cited State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar (2023) 3 SCC 773 to argue that vacancies need not always be filled under old rules, the Court distinguished this by focusing on the specific entitlement to pension rather than recruitment rules

The Court reasoned that the selection process was completed in 1999, long before the NPS was introduced in February 2005

It found that the delay in the petitioners' appointment was solely attributable to the State (due to an appointment ban and claimed lack of vacancies), rather than any fault of the petitioners

The Court noted that in WP(C) No. 5072/2007, it had already determined that the petitioners were covered by the Old Pension Scheme because their appointments were simply "delayed" from the 1999 list

The Court rejected the State's argument that the later appointment date or the signing of NPS undertakings should override their rights, reinforcing that the legal framework at the time of selection governs their service benefits

The Court held that the petitioners' rights were established by the prior judgment in WP(C) No. 5072/2007 and the specific facts showing the delay was administrative. The respondent authorities were ordered to dispose of the matter and issue reflecting orders within one month from the receipt of the judgment