JUDGMENT : S. N. Prasad, J. 1. This writ petition is under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the order dtd.18th July, 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.80 of 2014 is under challenge, whereby and where under the Tribunal has refused to grant relief to the applicant with respect to giving benefit of old pension scheme by dismissing the original application. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the applicant had made application for consideration of his candidature for appointment to the post of Post Graduate Teacher by virtue of advertisement No.149 under Annexure-1, pursuance thereto, she being declared successful in the selection test, has been issued with the offer of appointment vide memo dtd.11th December, 2003 (Annexure-2), pursuant thereto she has submitted her consent on 16.12.2003 and further sent on 17.12.2003 enclosing the documents as required by the opposite parties, but even after giving acceptance of offer of appointment on 17.12.2003 she was directed to report for duty only by way of memorandum dtd.25.2.2004 and accordingly she has joined the post. The grievance of the petitioner/applicant is that there was no fault on her part, rather she has given the acceptance of offer of appointment before the implementation of the Defined Contribution Pension Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.2004, but it is latches on the part of the authorities, she was allowed to join duty only on 25th February, 2004, as such she cannot be denied the benefit of the Pension Scheme which was prevalent before 01.01.2004. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant has submitted that immediately after knowing about the fact that she had been allowed to join w.e.f. 25.2.2004 for which she has been made to suffer so far as Old Pension Scheme is concerned, she, after making application under Right to information Act to get the relevant documents and it is only after filing of an appeal under the provision of Right to Information Act, she has got the documents with respect to the appointment of one Miss. Ishwant Kaur as Post Graduate Teacher in Biology and one Miss. Ishwant Kaur as Post Graduate Teacher in Biology and one Miss. Pinki Sharma as Post Graduate Teacher in Chemistry whose cases are exactly similar to that of the petitioner and the authorities have allowed them to join the moment the acceptance of offer of appointment has been given by them, making them to enjoy the benefit of Old Pension Scheme but the same has been denied to the petitioner merely on account of the fact that the authorities have directed the petitioner to join her duty only on 25th February, 2004. 4. The petitioner/applicant on this ground had approached the Tribunal with a prayer to direct the authorities to allow her the benefit of Old Pension Scheme presuming her to be an appointee prior to 01.01.2004 on the basis of the fact that she has given the acceptance of offer of appointment way back on 16.12.2003. 5. The tribunal, after taking into consideration the date of joining of the petitioner in service which was after 01.01.2004, has rejected the plea by dismissing the original application, the said order is under challenge in this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for opposite party/Respondents has argued out the case by defending the order passed by the Tribunal by submitting that there is no error in the order, rather the Tribunal has passed an order within the legal framework since the Government of India has come out with a notification on 22nd December, 2003 through Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs) whereby and where under the Government has approved the proposal to implement the budget announcement of 2003-04 relating to introducing a new Restructured Defined Contribution Pension Scheme for new entrants to Central Government service, except to Armed Forces, in the first stage, replacing the existing system of defined benefit pension system applicable with effect from 01.01.2004. According to the learned counsel for the opposite party, since the petitioner has joined his duty on 9th March, 2004, as such, in view of the cutoff date, i.e. 01.01.2004, she will not be entitled to get the benefit of Old Pension Scheme applicable prior to 01.01.2004, the Tribunal, after taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, has passed the order, hence there is no infirmity. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant has submitted that although the old pension Scheme has been made applicable to the new entrants after 01.01.2004, but in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, since the petitioner has been declared successful, offer of appointment has been made way back on 11th December, 2003 which has been accepted by her on 16th December, 2003 and 17th December, 2003, but even after its acceptance, the authorities have not issued the appointment letter making her to join her post, rather the direction to join the post has only been issued on 25th February, 2004, hence there is no latches on her part, rather it is the department who has committed lathes and due to their lethargic approach, she cannot be made to suffer. Learned counsel has submitted by taking the example of one Ishwant Kaur and Pinki Sharma that in similar circumstances they have been given appointment immediately after their acceptance of offer of appointment but that principle has not been followed in the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel has further submitted that the benefit pursuant to the new pension scheme since been adopted by the Regional Institute of Education only on 13.12.2004, as would be evident from Annexure-6, as such the petitioner/applicant will be eligible to get the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme since she has started discharging her duty from 09.03.2004, i.e. prior to the date of adoption dtd.13.12.2004. 8. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party has submitted that the claim of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law. So far as the contention regarding the other employees, namely, Ishwant Kaur and Pinki Sharma, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit since they have been appointed as Post Graduate Teachers in other faculty, i.e. one in Biology stream and the other in Chemistry, while the petitioner has been appointed under Commerce faculty. Since joining always depends upon the availability of vacancy and the reason for delay in issuing the posting order is the availability of vacancy. He submits that merely on the basis of the name having been appeared in the panel or on the basis of offer of appointment, no legal vested right will be said to be accrued in favour of the petitioner. He submits that merely on the basis of the name having been appeared in the panel or on the basis of offer of appointment, no legal vested right will be said to be accrued in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner was knowing about the fact regarding benefit of old pension scheme way back on 6.5.2005 but she has kept mum without challenging it fairly for a long period, as such the relief sought for by the petitioner is not fit to be entertained. 9. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents available on record. The fact which is not in dispute in this case is that the petitioner has made an application for consideration of her candidature to be posted as Post Graduate Teacher in Commerce faculty in which she was declared successful and thereafter the offer of appointment has been issued on 11th/12th December, 2003 with the condition that if he/she accepts the terms and conditions mentioned in the offer of appointment, he/she should communicate her/his acceptance to the under signed latest by 29th December, 2003, if no reply is received by the said date, the offer will be treated as cancelled without any further reference to his/her. In the light of the offer of appointment the petitioner has submitted her acceptance vide letter dtd.17.12.2003, reference of which we have got in the memorandum dtd.25th Feb, 2004, whereby and where under the petitioner has been directed to report for duty for the post of Post Graduate Teacher in Commerce, to Principal, Regional Institute of Education, Bhubaneswar, latest by 10th March, 2004 under intimation to the undersigned in the Council. The petitioner accordingly has given her joining and started discharging her duty. We have come across with the letter dtd.6.5.2005 issued under the signature of Under Secretary addressed to the Principal, Regional Institute of Education, Bhubaneswar with a copy to the petitioner informing her that the request of the petitioner to treat her under Old Pension Scheme has been considered by the counsel but it is regretted that the same cannot be acceded to since she joined the Council’s service on 9.3.2004 and as such she will be considered under Defined Contribution Pension Scheme. The petitioner, thereafter had approached to the Tribunal in the year 2014 for issuance of direction upon the opposite parties to give her benefit of the old pension scheme on the ground that in view of the offer of appointment dtd.11th/12th December, 2003 she has given her acceptance vide letter dtd.17.12.2003 but the authorities have kept mum in issuance of the posting order which unable the petitioner to resume her duty, as such she has been deprived from the benefit of Old Pension Scheme which was only applicable up to 01.01.2004. The further grievance of the petitioner is that when there is no latches on her part, rather it is the latches on the part of the authorities by issuing the memorandum dtd.25th/26th February, 2004 by virtue of which the posting order has been issued and in the light of the same she has joined on 9.3.2004, then she should not be made to suffer by not getting the benefit of Old Pension Scheme. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the date of joining i.e. 09.03.2004 and the applicability of the New Pension Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.2004, has rejected the plea of the petitioner by dismissing the original application which is under challenge in this writ petition. It is not in dispute that the Ministry of Finance, Government of India through the Department of Economic Affairs has issued a notification on 22nd December, 2003 whereby and where under the following decision has been taken:- “The Government approved on 23rd August, 2003 the proposal to implement the budget announcement of 2003-2004 relating to introducing a new restructured defined contribution pension system for new entrants to entral Government service, except to Armed Forces, in the first stage, replacing the existing system of defined benefit pension system. (i) The system would be mandatory for all new recruits to the central Government service from 1st of January 2004 (except the armed forces in the first stage). The monthly contribution would be 10 percent of the salary and DA to be paid by the employee and matched by the Central Government. However, there will be no contribution from the Government in respect of individuals who are not Government employees. The contributions and investment returns would be deposited in a non-withdrawable pension tier-I account. The existing provisions of defined benefit pension and GPF would not be available to the new recruits in the central government service. However, there will be no contribution from the Government in respect of individuals who are not Government employees. The contributions and investment returns would be deposited in a non-withdrawable pension tier-I account. The existing provisions of defined benefit pension and GPF would not be available to the new recruits in the central government service. (ii) Xxxxxxxxxx xxxxx (iii) Xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx” It is evident from the notification dtd.22nd December, 2003 that with effect from 01.01.2004 for all new recruits to the central Government service, the Defined Contribution Pension System will be applicable. It is also not in dispute that the offer of appointment has been issued in favour of the petitioner on 11th/12th December, 2003 which has been accepted by her vide letter dtd.17th December, 2003 and on the basis of that acceptance the memorandum was issued by the authority directing her to report for duty to the post of Post Graduate Teacher latest by 10.3.2004 and in pursuance thereto she has joined on 9.3.2004. It is settled principle that mere enlistment of name in the panel or issuance of offer of appointment does not create any right. It is also settled that it is up to the authority to issue posting order subject to availability of vacancy. The petitioner has not made out a case that any person under her faculty, below in the panel, has been given posting order ignoring her case, rather she has tried to make out a case by taking an example of two candidates namely, Miss. Ishwant Kaur and Miss. Pinki Sharma who are the appointees in the faculty of Biology/Chemistry respectively but from that the petitioner cannot get any parity for the reason that the petitioner’s faculty is entirely different to that of these two candidates. Ishwant Kaur and Miss. Pinki Sharma who are the appointees in the faculty of Biology/Chemistry respectively but from that the petitioner cannot get any parity for the reason that the petitioner’s faculty is entirely different to that of these two candidates. The admitted position in this case is that the petitioner has joined her duty on 09.03.2004 and after joining she approached to the authority for extending the benefit of pension under the Old Pension Scheme applicable up to 01.01.2004, the same has been rejected vide order issued in this regard on 6.5.2005, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge it fairly for a long period, rather she has challenged it in the year 2014 and the reason for approaching the court of law has been explained by the petitioner that in the meanwhile she was making sincere effort to get the document under the provision of Right To Information Act and immediately after getting the document she has approached to the Tribunal but according to our considered view that cannot be a ground to meet out the delay and latches committed on the part of the petitioner, that too after a period of about 10 years, even under Right To Information Act the period is given for getting the document from the Nodal Officer up to the First and Second Appellate Authority and taking into consideration the maximum period provided under the Right To Information Act, it cannot take 10 years in getting the document. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and since the new Pension Scheme has came into effect with effect from 01.01.2004 and the date of entry in the service by the petitioner is 09.03.2004, hence the petitioner cannot be held to be entitled to get the benefit of Old Pension Scheme. 10. In view thereof, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal since the same is based upon cogent reasons based upon the settled proposition of law, accordingly we find no error apparent on the face or record. In the result the writ petition stands dismissed.