JUDGMENT : Lanusungkum Jamir, J. W.P.(C) No. 58/2014 and W.P.(C) No. 59/2014 are being taken up together inasmuch as the facts and relief's sought in the writ petitions are identical. W.P.(C) No. 58/2014 has been filed by the Middle School Teachers Association, Sub-Headquarter, Lawngtlai represented by its President and the Members of the said Association are reflected at paragraph 1 of the writ petition. W.P.(C) No. 59/2014 has been filed by the petitioners numbering 145 and they are from the District of Saiha. 2. Petitioners in both the writ petitions were selected and appointed as Middle School Headmasters, Teachers and Group 'C' and 'D' staff after undergoing a selection process conducted by the respective Managing Board of different Middle Schools in the districts of Lawngtlai and Saiha. Pursuant to a decision of the Council of Ministers, the petitioners were transferred to the three Autonomous District Council within whose territorial jurisdiction they were located by a notification dated 18th August, 1994. The petitioners were transferred with the further condition that the teaching and non-teaching staff of Government Middle School will be governed by the terms and conditions appended at Annexure 13' of the said notification. Such transfer of the petitioners were made without their consent. As there were some discrepancies with regard to the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioners, they had approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No. 115/2003 for redressal of their grievances. By judgment and order dated 10.8.2007, this Court had set aside the notification dated 1.8.1994 with further direction that the petitioners so transferred shall enjoy the status of Government servants on deputation to the District Councils but without any deputation allowance. Accordingly, the respondents in compliance of the judgment and order dated 10.8.2007 issued notification dated 5.2.2008 restoring all non-Government Middle School and the teaching and non-teaching staff to their earlier position before 1.8.1994 with effect from 1.4.2008. 3. In the meantime, by a notification dated 22.2.2011, 44 Deficit Middle Schools under Mara and Lai Autonomous District Councils were provincialized in terms of Rule 3 of the Mizoram Middle Schools and High Schools (Provincialisation) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter the Rules of 1994). The said notification dated 22.2.2011 was issued pursuant to a decision of the Council of Ministers held on 20.12.2010. Such provincialisation of the school was done with retrospective effect from 1.9.2003 besides other terms and conditions. The said notification dated 22.2.2011 was issued pursuant to a decision of the Council of Ministers held on 20.12.2010. Such provincialisation of the school was done with retrospective effect from 1.9.2003 besides other terms and conditions. Consequent to the provincialisation, a notification dated 24.1.2012 was issued whereby 341 posts was created for absorption of the existing teaching and non-teaching staff of the newly Provincialized Middle Schools. Therein the notification, Lai Autonomous District Council is shown to consist of 137 posts and Mara Autonomous District Council with 204 posts. Thereafter, a DPC was constituted to consider the case of all the petitioners and in its meeting held on 20.6.2013, the DPC considered the case of the petitioners under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1994 and as amended in 2002 and were of the opinion that all the existing teaching staff of the newly Provincialized Middle Schools deserves absorption into the Government service against the posts created for the said Schools with retrospective effect from 1.9.2003 in accordance with the provisions contained under Rule 6 and 7(a) under the Rules of 1994 and as amended in 2002. 4. Consequent to the decision and recommendation of the DPC, the respondents issued notification dated 30.8.2013 absorbing 43 numbers of existing Headmasters of the newly Provincialized Middle Schools under Mara Autonomous District Council (25 Nos.) and Lai Autonomous District Council (18 Nos.) into Government Service as per the Rules of 1994. By another order dated 13.9.2013, existing teachers of 44 Deficit Middle Schools newly Provincialized under MADC (88 Nos.) and LADC (72 Nos.) and 1 (one) W.F. Teacher and 1 (one) IV Grade were absorbed into Government service with retrospective effect from 1.9.2003. By another order dated 13.9.2013, 38 numbers of Group 'C' and 'D' staff under LADC and 44 numbers of Group 'C' and 'D' staff under MADC were also absorbed into the Government service with retrospective effect from 1.9.2003. The names of the petitioners before this Court appeared in the respective notifications and orders issued for absorption of the Headmaster, teacher and Group 'C' and 'D' staff of the said provincialised Schools. 5. The names of the petitioners before this Court appeared in the respective notifications and orders issued for absorption of the Headmaster, teacher and Group 'C' and 'D' staff of the said provincialised Schools. 5. On absorption into Government service by the aforesaid notification and orders, some of the petitioners had applied for GPF Account number but such request was rejected by a communication dated 14.10.2013 written by the Deputy Director (P), Accounts and Treasuries, Aizawl, Mizoram stating that allotment of GPF Account number in respect of 9 Middle School Headmaster could not be accepted as their regularization have been done after 1.9.2010. The petitioners made representations to the respondents for not giving them the benefit of pension as provided under the Old Pension Scheme as well as under the Rules of 1994. Such representations was placed before the Finance Department by the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, School Education Department by an I.D. note dated 21.10.2013 with a request to issue necessary instruction to the Accounts and Treasuries Department for the applicability of the Old Pension Scheme as the 44 Deficit Middle Schools under LADC and MADC were provincialized with retrospective effect from 1.9.2003 as per the approval of the Council of Ministers in its meeting held on 20.12.2012. The petitioners thereafter had also made a representation dated 27.5.2014 expressing their grievances with regard to the applicability of the New Pension Scheme before the Parliamentary Secretary, School Education, Mizoram, Aizawl. While they were waiting for a positive response, the petitioners' Association received a letter dated 12.5.2014 from the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, School Education Department stating that all those Government servants who have been regularized in service before 1.9.2010 or thereafter prospectively will be covered by the New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme, 2010 (hereinafter the Pension Scheme of 2010) as it has become binding due to the introduction of the said Scheme. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition. 6. Heard Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram. 7. Mr. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition. 6. Heard Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram. 7. Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel submits that after the decision was taken by the Government for provincialisation of the 44 Middle Schools under the MADC and LADC, the State respondents have created 341 posts and thereafter had absorbed the petitioners into the Government service with retrospective effect from 1.9.2003. Such absorption of the petitioners was also done on the basis of the DPC recommendation held on 20.6.2013. He submits that the DPC was constituted under the Rules of 1994 and as amended in 2002. The DPC on 20.6.2013 had taken a decision and made its recommendation that the petitioners after being scrutinized were found fit to be absorbed into the Government service against the post created for the said Schools with retrospective effect from 1.9.2003. Such recommendation was made on the basis of Rules 6 and 7(a) of the Rules of 1994. Consequent to the recommendation of DPC, the said respondents had proceeded to implement such recommendation by absorbing the petitioners into Government service with retrospective effect from 1.9.2003. He also submits that the respondents in the meantime had enacted the New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme, 2010 (Pension Scheme of 2010) under Article 309 of the Constitution and the same came into force w.e.f. 1.9.2010. He submits that the applicability of the said Pension Scheme of 2010 is being spelt out at Clause 2. Clause 2.1(f) provides that the Pension Scheme of 2010 shall not be applicable to the persons whose terms and conditions of service are regulated by or under the provisions of the Constitution or any other law or specific scheme for the time being in force. As the petitioners were absorbed into government service under the Rules of 1994 also framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, he submits that the petitioners falls under Clause 2.1(f) inasmuch as the service condition of the petitioners are governed by the Rules of 1994. He, therefore, submits that the respondents had proceeded on a wrong premise by coming to the conclusion that case of the petitioners are governed by the Pension Scheme of 2010. He, therefore, submits that the respondents had proceeded on a wrong premise by coming to the conclusion that case of the petitioners are governed by the Pension Scheme of 2010. This being the admitted position, he submits that a direction is called for whereby the respondents be directed that the case of the petitioners does not fall under the purview of the Pension Scheme of 2010 and that they shall be entitled to all pensionary benefit as provided under the Rules of 1994. 8. Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram submits that there is no doubt that the petitioners were absorbed into Government service with retrospective effect from 1.9.2003. However, such absorption orders were issued in the year 2013 when the Pension Scheme of 2010 has already come into force. He therefore submits that notwithstanding the facts that they were given retrospective absorption, the orders were issued only in the year 2013 and the petitioners are squarely covered by the Pension Scheme of 2010 and as such no interference is called for and therefore the writ petitions should be dismissed. 9. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties. 10. The Core issue involved in this case is whether the Pension Scheme of 2010 would be applicable to the present petitioners before this Court. There is no doubt that the absorption order were issued in the year 2013 whereby the Headmaster, Teacher and Group 'C' and 'D' staff of 44 provincialized Schools of MADC and LADC were absorbed with retrospective effect from 1.9.2003. It is important to note that the DPC was constituted under the Rules of 1994. The recommendation made by the DPC for retrospective absorption of the petitioners w.e.f. 1.9.2003 were also made in terms of Rule 6 and 7(a) of the Rules of 1994. 11. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1994 are reproduced hereinbelow:-- "7. It is important to note that the DPC was constituted under the Rules of 1994. The recommendation made by the DPC for retrospective absorption of the petitioners w.e.f. 1.9.2003 were also made in terms of Rule 6 and 7(a) of the Rules of 1994. 11. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1994 are reproduced hereinbelow:-- "7. SERVICE CONDITIONS FOR HEADMASTERS, ASSISTANT HEADMASTERS, TEACHERS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES OF PROVINCIALISED HIGH SCHOOLS AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS: (a) The teaching and the non-teaching staff of the provincialised schools so absorbed in the Government service shall be entitled to such scales of pay and allowances and other benefits as may be admissible to Government employees of corresponding ranks in the Government School service and shall be entitled to retain such pay and allowances as were admissible to them immediately before the date of provincialisation of the School. (b) The inter-se-seniority of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the provincialised schools shall be such as may be determined by the Government from time to time. (c) The teaching and non-teaching staff of the provincialised schools shall be entitled to have their continuous past services in the respective deficit/adhoc Grant-in-Aid schools, if any, counted for the purposes of their pensionary benefits, leave and advances. Provided that the above benefits shall also be applicable to the teaching and non-teaching staff of all schools provincialised by the Government in the past. (d) Immediately from the date of provincialisation of the schools, all matters relating to the appointment, confirmation, promotion, retirement, superannuation pension, gratuity etc., in respect of the provincialised schools shall be governed by the existing Government rules and instructions issued thereon from time to time." 12. Clause 2.1 of the Pension Scheme of 2010 is also reproduced herein below: "2.1 Tier-I of this scheme shall apply only to the Government servants appointed on regular basis with effect from 1.9.2010 onwards to civil services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State which are borne on pensionable establishments, but shall not apply to:-- (a) Persons in casual and daily-rated employment. (b) Persons paid from contingencies. (c) Persons entitled to the benefit of a Contributory Provident Fund. (d) Members of All India Services. (e) Persons employed on contract basis. (b) Persons paid from contingencies. (c) Persons entitled to the benefit of a Contributory Provident Fund. (d) Members of All India Services. (e) Persons employed on contract basis. (f) Persons whose terms and conditions of service are regulated by order under the provisions of the Constitution or any other law or specific scheme for the time being in force." 13. A further reading of the New Pension Scheme of 2010 indicates that the same is mandatory to the Government servants who enter service into the Government service on regular service on or after 1.9.2010. Further, the Rules of 1994 clearly stipulates that the teaching and non-teaching staff of the provincialised Schools shall be entitled to have their continuous past services in the respective deficit/adhoc Grant-in-Aid Schools, if any, counted for the purpose of their pensionary benefits, leave and advances. 14. The petitioners before this Court were already serving in their respective capacities as early as 1994. The absorption orders of the petitioners into Government service may have been issued in the year 2013, however, it cannot be ignored that such absorption was done w.e.f. 1.9.2003 and that too on the recommendation of the DPC under the Rules of 1994. Another point of note that cannot be also ignored is the judgment and Order dated 10.8.2007 passed in W.P.(C) No. 115 of 2003 wherein it was directed that the petitioners shall enjoy the status of Government servants on deputation to the District Councils. The said judgment has already attained finality over the passage of time. 15. A reading of Clause 2.1(f) of the Pension Rule would clearly indicate that the terms and conditions of those person regulated by or under the provisions of the Constitution or any other law or specific Scheme would be exempted from the Pension Scheme of 2010. As already indicated hereinabove, the service of the petitioners were absorbed into Government service with retrospective effect from 1.9.2003 under the Rules of 1994 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. This Court has therefore no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the case of the petitioners are exempted from the Pension Rules of 2010. 16. Mr. As already indicated hereinabove, the service of the petitioners were absorbed into Government service with retrospective effect from 1.9.2003 under the Rules of 1994 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. This Court has therefore no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the case of the petitioners are exempted from the Pension Rules of 2010. 16. Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners at this stage submits that some members of the petitioners' Association had expired and retired prior to filing of this petition or during pendency of this writ petition and therefore submits that any relief granted by this Court should also cover those persons the prayer made by the learned senior counsel is accepted by this Court. 17. In view of the findings made by this Court that the new Pension Rules would not be applicable to the petitioners and that they shall be entitled to pensionary benefit, the respondents are directed to forthwith take necessary steps to allot the petitioners and other similarly situated persons their GPP Account number and other entitlement with regard to pensionary entitlement. Such steps should be completed within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and order of this Court by the respondents. 18. Consequently, the impugned communication dated 12.5.2014 (Annexure 18/A in W.P.(C) No. 58 of 2014 and Annexure-19/A in W.P(C) No. 59 of 2013) as well as the communication dated 14.10.2013 (Annexure-14 in W.P.(C) No. 59 of 2014) are set aside and quashed. Both the writ petitions are allowed. No cost. Petitions allowed.