They Sat The Exam Before The Cut-Off. Their Appointment Letters Came After.
A 2024 notification gave a one-time option to anyone whose recruitment began before 1 November 2005. The Education Department said it did not cover them. The High Court disagreed.
The Court held the petitioners entitled to the old pension scheme and the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 applicable to them, and directed the respondents to take all necessary steps to grant it. The notification of 2 February 2024 admits of no exception and so applies to all similarly placed employees. The rejection was perverse, made without considering that notification or the Full Bench.
- Recruitment, not appointment, is the trigger. The advertisement's date is what the option turns on.
- The 2024 notification has no exceptions, so it reaches every similarly placed employee.
- ‘No directions received’ is not a reason. Rejecting a representation on that basis was held perverse.
- A Full Bench had already framed the question — whether the Marathi ‘appointment’ or the English ‘recruitment’ governs.
- Court
- High Court of Judicature at Bombay
- Citation
- Writ Petition No. 12213 of 2025
- Case
- Writ Petition No. 12213 of 2025
- Decided
- September 2026
- Outcome
- Writ petition allowed; old pension scheme directed
The question a Full Bench had framed
The Full Bench was asked whether, in deciding between the old pension scheme and the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme, the word for ‘appointment’ in the Marathi text of the Government Resolution of 31 October 2005 is decisive, or whether the word ‘recruitment’ in the English version applies, having regard to Rule 2(2) of the Pension Rules, 1982.
What the 2024 notification did
During the hearing the Full Bench was shown a notification of 2 February 2024, by which the Government decided to extend the benefit of the Pension Rules, 1982, the Commutation of Pension Rules, 1984 and the General Provident Fund Rules to officers and employees who joined after 1 November 2005 but whose recruitment advertisement was published before that date, by making a one-time option available for six months.
The Full Bench held that since the notification does not admit of any exception, it applies to all similarly placed employees. A coordinate Bench had already allowed the petition of an Assistant Professor in exactly that position.
Why the rejection was perverse
The petitioners' appointments were approved on 100 per cent grant-in-aid posts, so they had to be given the option to choose between the two schemes under the 2024 notification. They had applied opting for the old scheme, and the institute had forwarded the proposals with documents to the Education Officer.
The Deputy Director of Education nonetheless held that no directions were available from the Department of School Education and Sports, and that a later Government Resolution applied only to Lecturers and Principals, not to teaching and non-teaching staff.
Merely because no directions had been received, the representation was rejected perversely, without considering the effect of the 2024 notification or the clear view of the Full Bench.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
I was recruited before November 2005 but appointed after. Which pension?
On this judgment the old pension scheme, under the one-time option in the notification of 2 February 2024.
Does the 2024 notification cover teaching and non-teaching staff?
The Court held it admits no exception and applies to all similarly placed employees.
Claiming the old pension scheme on a pre-2005 recruitment
- Produce the advertisement and its publication date; that is the fact the whole claim rests on.
- Exercise the option in writing within the notification's window and keep proof of forwarding.
- Meet any Government Resolution said to limit the class, and show the notification admits no exception.
- Where a representation is rejected for want of departmental directions, plead perversity — that is how this one fell.
Source. High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Writ Petition No. 12213 of 2025, decided September 2026 by . This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Judicature at Bombay and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in