Delhi High CourtV Ramana Murthy & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 September, 2017Author:Sanjiv KhannaBench:Sanjiv Khanna,Navin Chawla*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                              W.P.(C) 6525/2016

                                         Reserved on: 27th July, 2017
%                                       Date of Decision: 11th September, 2017

V RAMANA MURTHY & ORS                         ..... Petitioners
                Through: Ms.Garima Sachdeva, Adv.

                               versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS                           ..... Respondents
                   Through: Ms.Abha Malhotra, Adv.

                       W.P.(C) 10141/2016

CT / WELDER GOPA RAM & ORS                      ..... Petitioners
                  Through: Ms.Garima Sachdeva, Adv.
                  versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS                           ..... Respondents
                   Through: Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC

                               W.P.(C) 5904/2017

NEERAJ KUMAR SHARMA & ORS                    ..... Petitioners
                 Through: Mr.Kumar Rajesh Singh, Adv.
                               versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS                            ..... Respondents
                   Through: Mr.Vikram Jetley, CGSC, UOI with
                   Mr.Vinod Kumar, Dy. Comdt., BSF

                       W.P.(C) 6585/2016

CHANDRA SHEKHAR AND ORS                     ..... Petitioners
                Through: Ms.Garima Sachdeva, Adv.
                               versus


WP(C) 6525/2016+connected matters                            Page 1 of 16
 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                        ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr.G.Tushar Rao, Mr.Mayank Sharma,
                  Advs.

                       W.P.(C) 3956/2017

                                          Reserved on: 28th July, 2017
%                                   Date of Decision: 11th September, 2017

SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH AND ORS                ..... Petitioners
                 Through: Ms. Garima Sachdeva, Advocate
                 versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                                       ..... Respondents
                  Through:                Ms. Suman Chouhan, Advocate with
                                          Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
SANJIV KHANNA, J.In view of similarity of the issue involved in these writ petitions, they
are being disposed of by this common judgment.2.     The petitioners, V Ramana Murthy & Ors in W.P. (C) 6525/2016,
CT/Welder Gopa Ram & Ors in W.P. (C) 10141/2016, and Neeraj Kumar
Sharma & Ors in W.P. (C) 5904/2017, were appointed and had joined as
Constable (General Duty) in the Border Security Force (BSF) after 1st
January, 2004 and hence, were not covered under the Central Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Old Pension
Scheme"). Instead, they have been covered by the new Contributory
Pension Scheme effective from 1st January, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as
the "New Pension Scheme").WP(C) 6525/2016+connected matters                             Page 2 of 163.      These petitioners do not dispute that they had joined as Constables on
or after 1st January, 2004 and as per Rule 2 of the aforesaid Pension Rules,
they would not be covered by the Old Pension Scheme, for the said Rules
apply to the government servants appointed on or before 31 st December,
2003.4.      The petitioners plead discrimination and violation ofArticle 14of the
Constitution on the ground that in the recruitment held for Punjab and
Haryana Zone in October/November-2003, the Constables were appointed
and had joined before 31st December, 2003 and have been given the benefit
of the Old Pension Scheme.5.In W.P. (C) No. 3956/2017,Santosh Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. Union
of India and Ors., and W.P. (C) No.6585/2016, Chandra Shekhar & Ors.
Vs. Union of India and Ors., the facts and the grounds of challenge differ
slightly. In Santosh Kumar Singh & Ors., the petitioners- 51 in number-
had participated and were selected as Sub-Inspectors pursuant to the Central
Police Organizations (Sub-Inspectors) Examination, 2003, which was held
on 7th September, 2003. These petitioners were initially declared unfit on
different grounds and had applied for a review by the Review Medical
Board. The Review Medical Board had declared them „fit‟ and thereafter,
they were appointed as Sub-Inspectors on 3rd March, 2005 in different
Armed Police Forces, namely, BSF, CISF, CRPF, and Indo-Tibetan Border
Police Force.The petitioners in W.P. (C) 6585/2016Chandra Shekhar &
Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.- 192 in number - had also participated in
the same examination for recruitment for the post of Sub-Inspector in
Central Police Organization held on 7th September, 2003. It is asserted that
the upper age limit prescribed was to be seen as on 1 st August, 2003. TheWP(C) 6525/2016+connected matters                            Page 3 of 16petitioners in this case, upon qualifying the written examination conducted
by the Staff Selection Commission, were asked to appear for the Physical
Efficiency Test, medical examination, and interview. The final results were
declared on 22-28 May, 2004 and the 192 petitioners were selected to join
the Border Security Force. We may note that the respondents have filed
counter affidavit in the writ petition filed by Chandra Shekhar and others,
which has been also read in the writ petition filed by Santosh Kumar Singh
and others.6.     The petitioners in all the writ petitions primarily rely upon the
Division Bench decisions of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 5400/2010,Avinash
Singh Vs. UOI & Ors., dated 26thMay, 2011, W.P. (C) No.3827/2012,
Naveen Kumar Jha Vs. UOI & Ors.dated 2nd November, 2012, W.P. (C)
No. 3834/2013,Parmanand Yadav & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.dated
12th February, 2015, and W.P. (C) No.2810/2016,        Inspector Rajendra
Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. dated 27th March, 2017.Pursuant to the
decision of the High Court in the case ofParmanand Yadav(supra), the
respondent no. 2, namely, the Director General of the Border Security Force
had issued the office order dated 13th January, 2016, acknowledging that the
matter had been examined in detail and after inter-Ministerial consultation,
it had been decided to implement the order of the High Court to extend
benefit of the Old Pension Scheme to all similarly situated Sub-Inspectors
selected through Central Police Organizations Examination, 2002, subject to
the condition that they would not be entitled to back wages and seniority.
This was notwithstanding Rule 2 of the Pension Rules which, as noticed
above, states that the old pension scheme would apply to government
servants appointed on or before 31st December, 2003.WP(C) 6525/2016+connected matters                         Page 4 of 167.     Turning to the question of discrimination and decisions of the Delhi
High Court, allowing the writ petitions by accepting the aforesaid plea, we
would like to refer to the facts which were noticed and form the foundation
of the ratio declared in the said cases.InAvinash Singh(supra), the
petitioners, who had applied for the post of Assistant Commandant in the
Central Police Forces, were declared temporarily medically unfit and were
subjected to review medical evaluation in which they were declared fit on
14th October, 2004. On 2nd November, 2004, which is 18 days after the
petitioners therein were declared medically fit, candidates who were
declared fit at the first instance joined the Indo-Tibetan Border Police as
Assistant Commandants. There was no explanation as to why the candidates
who were declared medically fit on 14th October, 2014 could not be issued
appointment letters till 2nd November, 2004. This, the Court observed, was a
mystery and remained unexplained. The petitioner therein was issued
appointment letter on 8th August, 2005, i.e. after nearly 10 months.
Subsequently, when the final seniority list of Assistant Commandants in
Indo-Tibetan Border Police was finalized, the petitioner therein was treated
as junior, irrespective of the merit position in the Select List, for the reason
that he had joined or were appointed at a later date. Discrimination was
apparent, for the appointment was by way of selection, albeit the relative
merit position obtained in the selection was ignored and given a go-bye and
fortuitous circumstances over which the petitioner had no control, i.e., being
declared temporarily medically unfit, gave unfair advantage and benefit to
those lower down in the merit list, i.e. those who had been declared
medically fit in the first instance. In this context, the Court held that the
delay in issue of appointment letters as Assistant Commandants was not theWP(C) 6525/2016+connected matters                            Page 5 of 16result of anything created by the petitioner but was a result of a supine
indifference and negligence on part of the authorities. Thus, it was directed
that the seniority of the entire batch would be on the basis of merit position
in the Select List irrespective of the date of joining. Direction was also
issued to constitute a Review Departmental Promotion Committee for the
post of Deputy Commandant. The facts of the case are squarely
distinguishable. It was a seniority dispute, and the injustice of treating the
petitioner higher in the merit list as a junior to those lower in the merit list,
was struck down. Fixing of seniority on the basis of date of joining, when
there were intervening fortuitous circumstances and faults on part of the
authorities was in violation of and impingingArticle 14of the Constitution.8.In the case ofNaveen Kumar Jha(supra), the petitioner had
participated in the SCC Combined Graduate Level Examination-2000 for
selection to the post of Sub-Inspector in Central Para Military Forces. After
having cleared the written examination and the Physical Efficiency Test, he
was declared unfit in the medical examination conducted on 4 th February,
2002. The petitioner on 25th February, 2002 had filed an appeal for being re-
examined by the Review Medical Board, but the examination was held after
nearly one year on 18th January, 2003 and he was thereupon declared fit.
Others, who were declared medically fit at the first instance, had joined the
respective paramilitary forces in March, 2003. However, the petitioner was
appointed as a Sub-Inspector in the CRPF only in April, 2004 and was
treated as a member of the New Pension Scheme.Referring to the decision
inAvinash Singh(supra) and an earlier decision in W.P. (C) No.
10028/2009,Amrendra Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors., the petitioner therein was
held entitled to benefit of the Old Pension Scheme.WP(C) 6525/2016+connected matters                             Page 6 of 169.In the case ofParmanand Yadav(supra), the position was somewhat
similar and the decision in the said case makes reference toNaveen Kumar
Jha and Avinash Singh(supra). The petitioners therein had applied
pursuant to the advertisement published in Employment News in 2002 for
the post of Sub-Inspectors in the four Central Paramilitary Forces. The
results were declared on 28th July, 2003 and letters offering appointment in
CISF, CRPF and Indo-Tibetan Border Police were issued in October, 2003.
However, in the case of BSF, the letters of appointment were issued in the
month of December, 2003. Due to this delay, the date of joining in the BSF
was after 1st January, 2004. The New Pension Scheme was implemented
with effect from 1st January, 2004. Consequently, the petitioners therein
were denied benefit of the Old Pension Scheme as they had joined BSF, but
others who had appeared in the same examination and had joined other
paramilitary forces, were covered under the old pension scheme. Directions
were accordingly issued that the petitioners therein must be given benefit of
the Old Pension Scheme, which was in vogue till 31st December, 2003, and
they must not be treated as members of the New Pension Scheme.
Consequently, the respondents upon consideration, as noticed above, have
issued order dated 13th January, 2016, stating that the Sub-Inspectors
selected through Central Police Organizations Examination, 2002 would be
entitled to benefit of the Old Pension Scheme, which was in vogue till 31st
December, 2003.10.    The position in the case of Inspector Rajendra Singh & Ors. (supra)
is somewhat similar. The petitioners therein had applied and appeared in the
Central Police Organizations Examination, 2002 for the post of Inspector.
However, they were declared medically unfit, but were subsequentlyWP(C) 6525/2016+connected matters                          Page 7 of 16declared fit on medical examination by the Review Medical Board. Having
regard to the circumstances of the case, it was held to be grossly unfair and
arbitrary to deny the petitioners benefit of the Old Pension Scheme because
of fortuitous circumstances which were beyond their control. There was an
inordinate delay in holding of the review medical examination. It was also
noticed that the petitioners and others had opted for the BSF. If they had
known that by opting for the said paramilitary force they would be deprived
of the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme, they might not have opted for the
said force.11.    One contention and objection raised by the respondents in Inspector
Rajendra Singh and Ors. (supra) was delay and laches. The contention was
rejected, because of parlous discrimination.Noticeably, we may record that
the authorities had in the earlier cases ofNaveen Kumar Jha and
Parmanand Yadav(supra) not taken the plea of delay and laches.In these
circumstances, we should, following the ratio in Inspector Rajendra Singh
and Ors. (supra), not allow the respondents to take the said plea in the
present writ petition. A word of caution on the question of delay and laches
is required. The new Pension Scheme is contributory, as the Government
also contributes to the pension fund which is maintained by a third party.
Belated challenges and claims to be covered under the Old Pension Scheme
even after a decade would result in immense prejudice for the positions have
changed, and restitution would not be possible. This would be contrary to,
and impermissible under the terms of the statutory new pension scheme,
which does not specify or fix a stipulated return. It may be important for the
Government to retrieve their contribution under the New Pension Scheme.
The employees who are also covered under the New Pension Scheme wouldWP(C) 6525/2016+connected matters                           Page 8 of 16have to abide by the terms thereof. The retracing of steps or turning back the
clock may not be possible.12.    On studied examination we feel the petitioners in the present writ
petitions are not entitled to succeed and the writ petitions have to be
dismissed, for in the present case there is no discrimination or violation ofArticle 14of the Constitution.13.    The cases relating to selection to the post of Sub-Inspector vide
Central Police Organizations Examination, 2003 stand altogether on a
different footing. None of the candidates who were successful in the said
examination were issued appointment letters or had joined on or before 31st
December, 2003. The fact that the examination was held in 2003 would not
confer or give them any right. The cut-off date of 31st December, 2003 and
the condition or stipulation treating government servants who had joined on
or before 31st December, 2003 as a separate class is not discriminatory and
iniquitous.     The criteria fixing the date of joining and not the date of
advertisement or written examination cannot be faulted as discriminatory or
inequitable and, therefore, contrary toArticle 14.The relied upon judgments
do not hold so. This is not their ratio, finding and direction. A similar
contention was raised and rejected by this Court inShailender Kumar &
Ors. Vs. Delhi HighCourt through Registrar General & Anr., 189 (2012)
DLT 524. The petitioners therein were issued appointment letters prior to
31st December, 2003, but the actual date of joining was post 31 st December,
2003. The contention was rejected, inter alia, holding as under:-"2. The main contention of the petitioners is that the offer of
       appointment having been made to them prior to 1.1.2004 and their
       inability to join the post by 31.12.2003 not being attributable to anyWP(C) 6525/2016+connected matters                           Page 9 of 16lapse on their part, the benefit of CCS (Pension) Rules, cannot be
       denied to them....The Government was well within its right to
       discontinue the applicability of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and
       applying a new pension scheme to those who were to join the service
       after promulgation of the new pension scheme. It was for the
       Government to decide, in its wisdom, as to whether it wanted to apply
       the new pension scheme to those who had entered service on or after
       1.1.2004 or to those who were offered appointment on or after
       1.1.2004. The Government having decided to discontinue the
       applicability of CCS (Pension) Rules and to extend the new pension
       scheme to all those who were to join service on or after 1.1.2004,
       irrespective of the date on which offer of appointment was made to
       them, the petitioners do not have any legal right to claim applicability
       of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 to them. It is not as if the new pension
       scheme has been introduced after the petitioners had joined service of
       the Government. The petitioners were not in the service of the
       Government prior to 1.1.2004 and, therefore, they had no right to the
       posts of LDC in District Sessions Court, when the new scheme was
       promulgated by the Government. Thus, this is not a case of service
       condition of the employees being varied by the Government to their
       detriment. Even if the petitioners could not join the service on or
       before 31.12.2003 on account of no fault on their part that would
       make no difference since the relevant date is the date of joining the
       service and not the date on which the employment was offered to
       them. If we accept the contention that the offer of appointment having
       been made to the petitioners prior to 1.1.2004, they are entitled to be
       governed by CCS (Pension) Rules, that would be contrary to the
       terms of the scheme framed by the Government. We must take note
       of the fact that their necessarily has to be some time lag between the
       making of offer for appointment and the selected candidate joining
       the service of the Government because medical examination and
       police verification must necessarily precede the joining of service by
       him If the medical examination of some persons who are offered
       employment along with the petitioners was conducted and/or their
       police verification was done before the medical examination and/or
       police verification of the petitioners and consequently, those persons
       were able to join service on or before 31.12.2003 no benefit on that
       account accrues to the petitioners since completion of medicalWP(C) 6525/2016+connected matters                            Page 10 of 16examination and police verification depends upon a lot of factors
       including the place where the candidate is residing, the hospital in
       which he is to be medically examined, the date fixed by that hospital
       for medical examination, the time taken by the concerned police
       official in verification of the antecedents etc. If a person is offered
       employment say in last week of December, 2003, he cannot claim
       benefit of CCS (Pension) Rules because some time is necessarily
       required for his medical examination and police verification and,
       therefore, it will not be possible for him to join the service of the
       Government on or before 31.12.2003.XXXX5. However, in the case before us, there was no order passed by any
       Court restraining the respondents from making appointments to the
       post of LDC in District & Sessions Court. They were in a position to
       join service soon after their medical examination and police
       verification was complete. On the other hand, in the case ofDr.
       Pawan Kumar N. Mali(supra), relief was granted to the petitioners,
       primarily applying the principle that the order of the Court cannot
       prejudice anyone. Had there been no stay orderin that case, the
       respondentsin that casewould have joined service prior to
       01.01.2004, since not only the offer of appointment had been made to
       them, even their medical examination had been conducted well before
       the cut-off date of 01.01.2004. They were prevented from joining
       service, only because of stay order granted by the Court. On the other
       hand, none of the petitioners before this Court could have been
       allowed to join service prior to 01.01.2004 since the character
       verification in respect of all the three petitioners was received after
       31.12.2003.This judgment, therefore, cannot be applied to the case
       before us.6. This is not the case of the petitioners that their inability to join on
       or before 31.12.2003 was attributable to any negligence or lapse on
       the part of the respondents. If inability of the petitioners to join
       service on or before 31.12.2003 is not attributable to the respondents
       or to any order passed by a Court and was only on account of the time
       taken by the Hospital/Police in conducting medical examination and
       police verification, the petitioners cannot claim parity with the
       petitioners in the case ofDr. Pawan Kumar N. Mali(supra). For theWP(C) 6525/2016+connected matters                             Page 11 of 16reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, we find no merit in the
       writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed."14.    An identical view has been taken inSanjay Kumar Thakur & Ors.
Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., 236 (2017) DLT
163 (DB), wherein reference was made to other case laws. In paragraph 18
ofthe said judgment, it has been held:"18. We are not inclined to accept the reasoning of the Central
       Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in the decision dated
       28.06.2013 in OA No. 724/2012,P. Rajesh Kumar v. The Union of
       India, which records that benefit of the old pension scheme would be
       available to the applicants therein for the reason that the vacancies
       had arisen and related to the period prior to 1 st January, 2004. The
       ratio and reasoning is unacceptable in view of the prescribed cut-off
       date of 1.1.2004, with reference to the date of joining and not the date
       of vacancies. The aforesaid criterion, i.e. the date of joining, is not
       arbitrary or whimsical but is with salutary and good reason.Courts
       cannot substitute the said criterion with another criterion as has been
       done by the Tribunal in the case ofP. Rajesh Kumar(supra), wherein
       the date of vacancy, it has been observed, would be the fair and just
       criterion. This is impermissible and cannot be accepted. The courts or
       judicial forums cannot legislate and substitute dates. It is well-settled
       that the courts do not interfere with cut-off date as these are matters
       of discretion and within the domain of the Executive or the
       Legislature. The power to specify a date from which terminal or
       pensionary benefits, as the case may be, shall take effect is
       concomitant of the power of the State or Corporation to change the
       conditions of service unilaterally. So long as the date specified is
       reasonable and not wayward with reference to the requirement of
       fixing a point of time etc., no interference by the Court is called for.(SeeState of West Bengal v. Ratan Behari Dey(1993) 4 SCC 62).
       When classification is permissible, choice of date being a basis of
       classification, the date so fixed cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary
       even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice unless it is
       shown to be capricious or whimsical in the given circumstances.
       When a line or point is to be fixed and there is no mathematicalWP(C) 6525/2016+connected matters                            Page 12 of 16formula or logical way to fix the same precisely, the decision of the
       Legislature or its delegate must be accepted unless it can be said that
       the date or point so fixed is widely off the reasonable mark.(SeeUnion of India v. Parameswaran Matchworks(1975) 1 SCC
       305 and A. Manjula Bhashini v. A.P. Women's Coop Finance Corpn.
       Ltd. (2009) 8 SCC 431). Whenever a law is enacted or an amendment
       is made, the same has to be with effect from a particular date. When it
       is otherwise permissible and legitimate to fix a date, the date so fixed
       is open to scrutiny on the limited grounds of whimsicality and
       capriciousness. If the choice made is burdensome to those to whom
       the wrong done is sought to be rectified, it would be open to the Court
       to examine the choice of date and find out whether it has resulted in
       any discrimination.(SeeB. Prabhakar Rao v. State of A.P., 1985
       Supp SCC 432). Further, it is a well-settled and accepted principle of
       law that the name of a candidate appearing on a select list would not
       give him an indefeasible right to appointment and it would be open to
       the Government to not fill up the vacancies. The Government cannot
       be compelled to fill up vacancies where the decision not to do so is
       sound and rational, especially in the case of direct recruits.(SeeNeelima Shangla v. State of Haryana(1986) 4 SCC 268), Manoj
       Manu v. UOI(2013) 12 SCC 171, Kulwinder Pal Singh v. State of
       Punjab (2016) 6 SCC 532). Thus, we would hold that there can be a
       gap between the date of vacancy, selection and appointment. On some
       occasions, appointments may not be made at all or may be made after
       a long delay."15.    When we turn to the writ petitions filed by V. Ramana Murthy &
Others, Neeraj Kumar Sharma & Others, and Constable Welder Gopa Ram
& Others it is noticed that the plea of discrimination is predicated on the
contention that some other candidates were selected for the post of
Constable (GD) in the BSF pursuant to the recruitment rally held in Punjab
and Haryana in October/November, 2003 and in the said cases, the
appointment letters were issued in December, 2003. However, in the case
of V. Ramana Murthy & Others, advertisement for the Recruitment rally forWP(C) 6525/2016+connected matters                            Page 13 of 16the State of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Lakshadweep
and Pondicherry States/Union Territory was published in August, 2003.
Thereafter, Recruitment rally was held in Bangalore in October, 2003 and
appointment letters were issued on or after 1st January, 2004. In the case of
Constable Welder Gopa Ram & Others, advertisement was published in
August/September, 2003 for recruitment rallies to be held at SHQ, BSF
Campus, Bikaner, Rajasthan on 10th October, 2003. After the selection
process, appointment letters were issued in February/March, 2004. In the
case of Constable Neeraj Kumar Sharma & Others pursuant to the
advertisement published in September, 2003, recruitment rally was held in
October/November, 2003 at Chhawla, Najafgarh Road, Delhi. Thereafter,
call letters were issued in December, 2003 and candidates were asked to
appear before the Commandant on 5th and 10th January, 2004. The date of
joining was subsequent to 1st January, 2004. Thus, the petitioners were
denied benefit of the Old Pension Scheme.16.    Selection process does take time for varied and different reasons. It is
not the case of the petitioners that there was a deliberate delay in the
selection process. There could be a variety of administrative and logistical
reasons or causes for the time taken to complete the selection process and
issue the appointment letters, which we do not find is per se inordinate and
prolonged. Today after nearly 14 years, it would be impossible and unfair to
ask the respondents to offer and give cogent explanation as to the reason
why the selection and issue of appointment letters took the time that it did.
The petitioners have remained silent during the intervening period and had
apparently accepted the position that they would be governed by the New
Pension Scheme. There were separate advertisements, each initiating aWP(C) 6525/2016+connected matters                            Page 14 of 16separate selection process. Expeditious and early selection and appointment
of candidates subsequent to the recruitment rally held in Punjab and
Haryana cannot be a ground to urge that there was discrimination and
violation of parity.On being asked, counsel for the petitioners have
accepted and admitted that the petitioners have not challenged or questioned
the seniority of those selected and appointed in the recruitment rally held in
Punjab and Haryana. The date of joining, as per Rules, is the criterion to
determine inter se seniority. The date of initiation of the recruitment process
is not the criterion. This being the position, the ratio inSanjay Kumar
Thakur & Ors.(supra) andShailendra Kumar & Ors.(supra) would be
applicable. The other set of decisions, which have been distinguished above,
would not apply. In the said cases some officers from the same batch of
candidates, i.e. same selection process had joined before 31.12.2003, but the
"petitioner" for fortuitous reasons had joined later. Thus some candidates
from the same selection process were given benefit of the Old Pension
Scheme, but other candidates who could not join earlier for no fault of
theirs, were denied the benefit and were treated as members of the New
Pension Scheme. This is not the position in the present case.17.    However, as a matter of abundant caution, we would observe and
clarify that in case any of the selected candidates belonging to the same
selection batch have been granted benefit of the Old Pension Scheme, which
the petitioners have been denied, the petitioners would be entitled to raise
the said claim before the authorities and, if denied the said benefit, can
approach the appropriate forum for relief. The aforesaid observations would
not confer any right on the petitioners who are not being discriminated, in
the sense that they have been denied the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme,WP(C) 6525/2016+connected matters                            Page 15 of 16whereas others appointed and selected through the same selection process,
i.e. pursuant to the same advertisement and recruitment rally, have been
covered under the old pension scheme.18.    With the aforesaid observations and caveat, the writ petitions are
dismissed without any order as to costs.(SANJIV KHANNA)
                                                     JUDGE



                                                 (NAVIN CHAWLA)
                                                     JUDGE
September 11th, 2017
NA/ssnWP(C) 6525/2016+connected matters                       Page 16 of 16