MANJU KUMARI MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

(2.) In this writ application, the petitioners are claiming that they are entitled to the benefits of pension scheme under the rule applicable prior to 1/9/2005. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that selection process was undertaken by the respondents in the year 1991 but the respondents have ignored the case of the petitioners who belongs to physically challenged category. The matter was settled in the High Court and the High Court directed consideration of their cases in terms of decision contained in Annexure-9 and after the order contained in Annexure-9, i.e., C.W.J.C. No.8731 of 1999 dtd. 5/8/2004, the respondents considered the case of the petitioners for appointment against the physically handicapped category.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioners were appointed out of separate select list prepared by the respondents for appointment against the physically handicapped quota and they have been appointed after the cut off date dtd. 5/9/2005. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the lapse of respondents responsible for delaying the appointment petitioners cannot suffer, as respondents cannot take advantage of their own wrong and deny the benefit of Old Pension Scheme. Petitioners have been appointed. Pursuant to Advertisement No.2 of 1991, at the time of selection process, the existing pension was different which was amended only with effect from 5/9/2005 and as such the Court does not find merit in the contention of the respondents that since the petitioners were appointed though pursuant to the Advertisement No.2 of 1991 and on the direction of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.8731 of 1999 dtd. 5/8/2004, they are not entitled to benefits under Old Pension Scheme.