The High Court of Telangana has directed that a government servant selected prior to 2004 but appointed after the implementation of the New Pension Scheme (NPS) may claim entitlement to the Old Pension Scheme if the delay in appointment was due to administrative reasons. The Court disposed of the writ petition without adjudicating the merits, permitting the petitioner to submit a representation for reconsideration by the authorities in light of a prior Division Bench ruling.
The Verdict
The petitioner won on procedural grounds. The High Court of Telangana held that the petitioner is entitled to seek reconsideration of his pension status under the Old Pension Scheme, provided he submits a formal representation demonstrating that his selection occurred before January 1, 2004, and his appointment was delayed due to administrative reasons. The Court directed the respondents to consider the representation within six weeks, guided by a prior Division Bench judgment in W.P. No. 22599 of 2023.
Background & Facts
The petitioner, B. Nagaraju, was selected for the post of Office Subordinate in a competitive examination conducted on July 31, 2000, under a recruitment scheme for displaced persons governed by G.O.Ms. No. 98 dated April 15, 1986. Despite selection in 2000, his formal appointment order was issued only on April 4, 2007 - after the Government of India had introduced the New Pension Scheme (NPS) effective January 1, 2004, which the State of Telangana subsequently adopted.
The petitioner contended that the delay in appointment was not attributable to him but resulted from administrative inefficiencies within the Irrigation Department. He relied on two official memoranda issued by the Government of India: No. 57104/2019-P & PW(B) dated February 17, 2020, and No. 57105/2021-P & PW(B) dated March 3, 2023, which clarified that candidates selected before January 1, 2004, but appointed later due to administrative delays, are eligible for the Old Pension Scheme.
The petitioner also cited a Division Bench judgment dated March 19, 2025, in W.P. No. 22599 of 2023 and batch, which had held that employees whose selection process commenced before January 1, 2004, even if vacancies arose before December 31, 2003, are entitled to the Old Pension Scheme. He sought a writ of mandamus directing the State to extend the benefit retroactively.
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and also invoked Section 151 of the CPC for inherent powers. The respondents, including the State of Telangana and the Ministry of Personnel, did not contest the factual matrix but reserved their position on legal entitlement.
The Legal Issue
The central legal question was whether a government servant selected in a competitive examination before January 1, 2004, but appointed after the implementation of the New Pension Scheme due to administrative delay, is entitled to the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme under the Government of India’s clarificatory guidelines.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Government of India’s memoranda of February 2020 and March 2023 explicitly extended Old Pension Scheme eligibility to candidates selected before January 1, 2004, even if their appointments were delayed due to administrative reasons. He relied on the principle of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 and the right to property under Article 300-A, asserting that denying pension benefits based on administrative delay, rather than the date of selection, was discriminatory and violative of equality. He further invoked the binding precedent of the Division Bench in W.P. No. 22599 of 2023, which had granted similar relief to petitioners in identical circumstances.
For the Respondent
The Government Pleaders for the State did not dispute the factual timeline or the existence of the clarificatory memoranda. They conceded that if the petitioner submitted a formal representation detailing his selection date and the cause of delay, the authorities would consider it in accordance with law. They avoided taking a firm legal position on entitlement, instead deferring to administrative discretion and the pending representation process.
The Court's Analysis
The Court declined to adjudicate the substantive claim on merits, noting that the parties had consented to disposal at the admission stage. However, the Court explicitly recognized the legal framework established by the Government of India’s memoranda and the binding precedent of its own Division Bench. The Court emphasized that the petitioner’s claim was not speculative but grounded in official policy and judicial precedent.
"The petitioner’s selection occurred in 2000, well before the cut-off date of January 1, 2004, and the delay in appointment was not attributable to him. The Government of India’s clarificatory guidelines and this Court’s own judgment in W.P. No. 22599 of 2023 provide a clear legal pathway for relief."
The Court found no justification for denying the petitioner an opportunity to have his claim reviewed through the prescribed administrative channel. It held that requiring a formal representation was not a procedural hurdle but a necessary step to ensure the authorities could apply the law to the specific facts. The Court’s direction to decide within six weeks was not merely procedural - it was a judicial directive to act expeditiously, recognizing the long-standing nature of the petitioner’s service and the equitable nature of pension entitlement.
The Court’s reasoning implicitly affirmed that administrative delay, when unattributable to the employee, does not extinguish rights accrued at the time of selection. This aligns with the doctrine of legitimate expectation and the principle that public authorities must not benefit from their own inaction.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This order establishes a clear procedural pathway for government employees selected before January 1, 2004, but appointed after the NPS implementation due to administrative delays. Practitioners can now confidently advise clients to file representations under the Government of India’s 2020 and 2023 memoranda, citing the Telangana High Court’s own precedent in W.P. No. 22599 of 2023.
The judgment does not create a new legal right but reinforces the binding effect of clarificatory policy and prior judicial rulings. It signals that courts will not permit the State to evade its obligations by invoking procedural technicalities when the delay is clearly administrative. Future petitioners must ensure their representations explicitly link their selection date to the pre-NPS period and document the cause of delay.
The six-week timeline for decision-making, while not legally enforceable as a statutory deadline, carries strong judicial weight. Failure to comply may invite contempt proceedings or a fresh writ petition with greater urgency. This case also underscores the importance of citing binding Division Bench judgments in similar matters to avoid redundant litigation.
