Post-Cutoff Appointment Against Non-Joining Vacancies Precludes Transition from New to Old Pension Scheme

The petitioner was a candidate for the 24th Bihar Judicial Service, with vacancies advertised in 1990 and interviews conducted in 1994.

Due to pending litigation (Special Leave Petition) and administrative delays, he was finally appointed as a Munsif on March 7, 2006.

He served for over ten years and retired as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, on January 31, 2019.

Since his appointment occurred after January 1, 2004, he was placed under the New Pension Scheme (NPS).

The petitioner sought a writ to quash the order dated August 23, 2024, which rejected his request to be converted from the NPS to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), arguing that his selection process was completed prior to the 2004 cutoff.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme on the ground that his recruitment process commenced and vacancies existed prior to January 1, 2004.

2. Whether the present writ petition is maintainable in light of a previous adjudication on the same subject matter by a Division Bench of the High Court.

The Court applied the principle of *res judicata* and judicial finality, emphasizing that issues already adjudicated between the same parties by a bench of coordinate jurisdiction cannot be reopened.

It further applied the State’s policy regarding the New Pension Scheme, which mandates that employees appointed after the cutoff date (January 1, 2004 / September 1, 2005) are governed by the contributory pension scheme rather than the traditional Old Pension Scheme.

The Court noted that while the petitioner argued his appointment delay was administrative and outside his control, the Respondent-State clarified that he was appointed in 2006 against a "non-joining vacancy" rather than the primary merit list, at a time when the NPS was already in force.

Crucially, the Court found that the petitioner had previously filed a writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 11323 of 2021) seeking "substantially similar relief," which was dismissed by a Division Bench on February 21, 2023.

The Court reasoned that once a competent Division Bench has adjudicated the issue, the same cannot be reconsidered in a subsequent proceeding.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner was appointed after the implementation of the NPS and remained governed by it throughout his entire service tenure until retirement in 2019.

The Court answered the issues by affirming that the petitioner is governed by the New Pension Scheme and cannot seek conversion to the Old Pension Scheme post-retirement.

The writ petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit.