Old Pension Scheme As Per Job Advt Can't Be Denied Because Employees Joined After Cut Off Date; Jharkhand HC
Namdev Singh
21 Oct 2025 12:00 PM IST
A Division bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar held that appointees selected pursuant to advertisements issued prior to 01.01.2004 are entitled to the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme, even if their actual appointment or joining occurred after the introduction of the New Pension Scheme.
Background Facts
An advertisement was issued by the Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, on 02.09.2003 for the post of Senior Medical Officer. It explicitly stated that the post would carry GPF-cum-Pension benefits. The respondent was employed with Indian Telephone Industries Limited, and applied for the post. The selection process was delayed. He was called for an interview on 03.04.2004. He received an appointment offer and joined the new assignment on 30.06.2004.
In meantime, the New Pension Scheme (NPS) was notified on 22.12.2003 and made effective from 01.01.2004. The respondent was placed under New scheme contrary to the terms of the original advertisement. The respondent made several representations requesting to be shifted to the Old Pension Scheme, but the appellant authorities took no action. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition. The writ Court allowed the petition, holding that the benefits available at the time of the advertisement must be honoured, and the respondent was entitled to the Old Pension Scheme.
Aggrieved by this order, the appellants, Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad filed the appeal.
It was contended by the appellants that the respondent had joined his duties on 30.06.2004, which was well after the cut-off date. Therefore, his service conditions were rightly governed by the new policy regime in force at the time of his actual joining. On the other hand, it was contended by the respondent that benefits of Old Pension Scheme/ GPF-cum-Pension should be granted to the petitioner, as the Advertisement was issued on 2nd September, 2003 whereas the New Pension Scheme was introduced on 22nd December, 2003 and was made effective from 01.01.2004.
Findings of the Court
It was observed by the court that the advertisement itself explicitly promised GPF-cum-Pension benefits, and advertisement is sacrosanct and binding on both the parties.
The decision of the Delhi High Court in Inspector Rajendra Singh and Others vs. Union of India was relied upon by the court wherein the Court reiterated the principle that the terms of service, including the pension scheme, applicable at the time of the advertisement are sacrosanct. The benefit of the Old Pension Scheme must be extended to appointees selected for posts that were advertised prior to the cut-off date of 01.01.2004, even if their actual appointment is finalized thereafter.
Further the case of Dr. Davinder Singh Brar v. Union of India and others was also relied upon wherein it was reiterated that once a candidate got selected in pursuance to an advertisement issued prior to 01.01.2004 i.e. the date when the new defined Contributory Pension Scheme has come into being and even selection was made prior to the said date, merely issuance of appointment letter after the date when the new Contributory Pension Scheme came into being, will not take away the right of the appointee to be governed under the Old Pension Scheme.
It was held by the court that where the advertisement was issued prior to 01.01.2004, then the appointee even if appointed after 01.01.2004, would be governed by the Old Pension Scheme. Therefore, the New Contributory Pension Scheme which came into existence only from 01.01.2004 cannot be made applicable to such appointees and they shall continue to be governed by law that existed at the relevant time i.e. the Old Pension Scheme.
Consequently, no merit was found in the appeal. It was held that the respondent was entitled to be governed by the Old Pension Scheme. With the aforesaid observations, the Appeal filed by the appellants (Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad) was dismissed by the court.
Case Name : Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad & Anr. Vs. Dr. Praveen Kumar
Case No. : L.P.A. No. 61 of 2025
Counsel for the Appellants : Abhijeet Kumar Singh, C.G.C.
Counsel for the Respondent : Manoj Tandon, Advocate, Siddharth Ranjan, Advocate, Shivani Bhardwaj, Advocate