The Patna High Court has once again clarified when government appointees are entitled to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) instead of the New Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS). In this 2021 decision, the Court allowed a writ petition filed by a group of candidates selected through a Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) process initiated in 1998, whose actual appointments were delayed due to circumstances beyond their control. The Court held that such candidates, who were part of an old recruitment transaction and would have been appointed earlier but for State laches, are entitled to OPS and related service benefits, despite receiving appointment letters after the CPS cut-off of 01.09.2005.

The petitioners had responded to a 1998 BPSC advertisement for Class-III posts. They cleared prelims and mains, and BPSC recommended their names on 15.01.2003. They were called for counselling in April 2005, but only some lower-ranked candidates were appointed on 30.06.2005—i.e., before CPS commenced on 01.09.2005—while the petitioners were left out without justification. After multiple writ petitions, the petitioners were finally appointed on 31.12.2007. The core dispute was whether these belatedly appointed candidates should be governed by OPS, like their lower-ranked peers appointed in June 2005, or by CPS merely because the State issued their appointment letters after 01.09.2005.

The Court accepted the petitioners’ position that “old vacancies must be governed by old rules,” particularly when the selection process began long before the new scheme, and when lower-ranked candidates from the same merit list were appointed pre-CPS. It relied on prior Patna High Court decisions (including Md. Kayumuddin Ansari) that rejected a mechanical reliance on the CPS cut-off date where the delay was not the candidates’ fault and where selection was a single continuous process from an older advertisement. It also invoked the Supreme Court’s principles in P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka (1990) 1 SCC 411 (old rules apply to old vacancies) and Union of India v. Gurnam Singh (1982) 2 SCC 314 (pension is a condition of service).

Ultimately, the writ petition was allowed. The Court held that the petitioners are entitled to OPS and directed grant of notional continuity, pay fixation and seniority from the dates when lower-ranked candidates were appointed, subject to verification by the District Magistrate, Darbhanga, within six weeks of receipt of the order.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This ruling is significant for candidates selected in earlier recruitment cycles but appointed later due to administrative delay or litigation. It reiterates that:

• OPS applies when selection and vacancy belong to an earlier “transaction,” even if the appointment letter issues after the CPS cut-off, provided the delay is not attributable to the candidate and similarly placed peers from the same list received OPS.
• Pension is a condition of service; therefore, the governing rules are those in force at the time the recruitment process began, not necessarily the date of the appointment letter.
• Administrative authorities must ensure parity in treatment within the same merit list; higher-ranked candidates cannot be disadvantaged relative to lower-ranked appointees who benefitted from OPS.

For government departments, the judgment underscores the risk of litigation and financial exposure when delayed appointments are slotted into newer, less beneficial schemes without examining the recruitment’s genesis and parity concerns. For the general public and aspirants, it clarifies that rights linked to an earlier recruitment process do not vanish simply because the appointment letter is delayed by the State.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning

• Whether candidates selected in a pre-CPS recruitment—but appointed post-CPS due to State delay—are governed by OPS or CPS.
  Decision: OPS applies. Reasoning: Old vacancies are governed by old rules; selection emanated from a 1998 advertisement; BPSC recommended in 2003; counselling took place in 2005; lower-ranked persons from the same list were appointed pre-CPS. A mechanical application of the 01.09.2005 cut-off is impermissible when the delay was not the candidates’ fault.
• Whether pension rights can be altered for such candidates merely because appointment letters issued after the CPS date.
  Decision: No. Reasoning: Pension is a condition of service; hence the governing rules are those at the time of recruitment/selection. Reliance placed on P. Mahendran and Gurnam Singh.
• Consequential benefits if OPS applies.
  Decision: Petitioners are entitled to notional continuity, pay fixation, and seniority from the date when lower-ranked persons from the same merit list were appointed; subject to factual verification by the District Magistrate within six weeks.

Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations)

• Chandra Kant Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 16468 of 2016 (order dated 03.04.2017), approved by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 35714 of 2016 (order dated 06.01.2020).
• Md. Kayumuddin Ansari & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 10901 of 2006 (judgment dated 03.08.2011).
• Raj Narayan & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 20654 of 2010 (judgment dated 11.02.2016).
• Pramod Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 13797 of 2016 (judgment dated 03.04.2018).

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court (with citations)

• Md. Kayumuddin Ansari & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 10901 of 2006—quoted extensively; principle that OPS applies to appointees from the same recruitment transaction even if appointment letters postdate CPS.
• P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 1 SCC 411—old vacancies governed by old rules.
• Union of India v. Gurnam Singh, (1982) 2 SCC 314—pension is a condition of service.
• The Court also noted that the State’s counsel did not dispute that the case is covered by these authorities.

Case Title
Petitioners v. State of Bihar & Others (party names anonymised)

Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7413 of 2017.

Citation(s)
2021(2) PLJR 551

Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah.

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For the petitioners: Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate.
• For the respondents (State): Mr. Anil Kumar, AC to SC-8.

Link to Judgment
MTUjNzQxMyMyMDE3IzEjTg==-hhDnHfiAa1s=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.