JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State. 2. This writ petition has been filed by petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to provide them benefit under the Old Pension Scheme as existing prior to 01.04.2005. 3. The petitioners are still in service and have not retired. The petitioners claim to have appeared in a selection for appointment against post of Staff Nurse advertised in the year 2001. It is said that for some reason beyond their control the selection got delayed. They are not aware of the reason why this happened. Be that as it may, the petitioners were given appointment in 2006. They have referred to one writ petition bearing No. 3106 (M/S) of 2001 filed by some other persons but the counsel could not point out as to what was the issue involved therein. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that petitioners never approached the High Court prior to 2006 seeking expeditious selection or appointment, as the case may be. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners accepted appointment in 2006 by which the New Post Retirement Scheme had come into force and the Old Pension Scheme had seized to be effective from 01.04.2005. The fact of the matter is that the date of entry of petitioners in service is subsequent to 01.04.2005. 4. The basis of the claim of petitioners for benefit under the Old Pension Scheme, as and when the occasion arises, is a decision of this Court in the case of Mahesh Narayan and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.; Writ Petition No. 55606 of 2008, however, this issue and the applicability of the decision in Mahesh Narayan's case (supra) came up for consideration before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No. 5414 of 2020; Manoj Kumar Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench opined that recruitment in the said case commenced on 20.10.1999 in respect of a pensionable post. The recruitment got delayed on account of a dispute raised before this Court. Although by virtue of the order passed in Special Appeal No. 485 (S/B) of 2001, dated 29.12.2001, there was no impediment in completion of recruitment but the selection got completed only after dismissal of writ petition on 05.07.2005. The recruitment got delayed on account of a dispute raised before this Court. Although by virtue of the order passed in Special Appeal No. 485 (S/B) of 2001, dated 29.12.2001, there was no impediment in completion of recruitment but the selection got completed only after dismissal of writ petition on 05.07.2005. In between, a subsequent advertisement was issued and the selected candidates were appointed prior to 01.04.2005 i.e. during the Old Pension Scheme. The Notification dated 28.03.2005, 07.04.2005 and the amended rules of 2005 were challenged as not being applicable upon the petitioner. The writ petition was partly allowed in Mahesh Narayan's case (supra). This Court in Manoj Kumar Singh's case (supra) opined that the judgment in the case of Mahesh Narayan's case (supra) is again on the facts of its own, inasmuch as, the recruitment process was delayed for no obvious reason and persons appointed pursuant to a subsequent notification were appointed earlier and were granted the benefit of old pension rules. Persons appointed against a previous advertisement could not be denied benefits which had already been extended to the appointees of a later recruitment exercise. The Court opined that the protection in the form of benefit under old pension rules in Mahesh Narayan's case (supra) had been extended only to protect against an arbitrary act. The Court further opined that this judgment did not lay down any proposition that delay in concluding selection would ipso facto result in applicability of old pension scheme. 5. In Manoj Kumar Singh's case (supra) various other decisions cited by the petitioners such as Firangi Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2011 (2) UPLBEC 987, Ashutosh Joshi and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others; Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1170 of 2010 decided on 17.06.2013 and Special Appeal No. 330 of 2013 decided on 26.06.2014 arising therefrom as also a decision of Delhi High Court in Inspector Rajendra Singh Vs. Union of India reported in (2017) SCC Online Delhi 7879 were considered and distinguished. 6. In Inspector Rajendra Singh's case (supra) also, the petitioners were discriminated, inasmuch as, after being selected they were declared medically unfit. While their matter was pending before the Review Medical Board, the Commission declared results of all other selected candidates, except the petitioners. Union of India reported in (2017) SCC Online Delhi 7879 were considered and distinguished. 6. In Inspector Rajendra Singh's case (supra) also, the petitioners were discriminated, inasmuch as, after being selected they were declared medically unfit. While their matter was pending before the Review Medical Board, the Commission declared results of all other selected candidates, except the petitioners. Others were appointed and were entitled to the benefit of Old Pension Scheme but on account of delay in appointment of the petitioners, who were subsequently declared medically fit, they were denied the benefit, therefore, that was also a case of discrimination. The co-ordinate Bench opined that Similar were the facts in the case of Naveen Kumar Jha Vs. Union of India and others, decided by Delhi High Court on 2.11.2012. 7. As regards the decision in Firangi Prasad's case (supra) the co-ordinate Bench in Manoj Kumar Singh's case (supra) opined that it was a case of arbitrariness and covered by the exception carved out in Shankarsan Das Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 as appointment had been arbitrarily denied to the selected candidate within 10 days as was mandated, resulting in delay in regularization. 8. With regard to Ashutosh Joshi's case also (supra), although a passing observation was noticed by a co-ordinate Bench that selection having commenced during old pension scheme it would be applicable upon male candidates appointed later, yet, as observed by it, this observation had to be read in the context of the fact that similarly placed women candidate were covered by the old pension rule. It opined that the Court in Ashutosh Joshi's case (supra) apparently was protecting the petitioners against an arbitrary scenario and thus this case also fell in the excepted category in Shankarsan Das (supra) of arbitrariness and discrimination. 9. Other decision of Uttrakhand High Court in Balwant Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Uttrakhand (Writ Petition No. 16 and 944 of 2011) was also dealt with and it was observed by the co-ordinate Bench that there is a distinction between rules of recruitment and conditions of service. The principle that rules of recruitment cannot be changed can have no applicability in a scenario where conditions of service is changed on account of change in the service rules. Pension etc. The principle that rules of recruitment cannot be changed can have no applicability in a scenario where conditions of service is changed on account of change in the service rules. Pension etc. would fall within the meaning of conditions of service and not conditions of recruitment, therefore, conditions of service can always be changed. Ultimately, the co-ordinate Bench in Manoj Kumar Singh's case (supra) opined as under:- "28. The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that they have been arbitrarily discriminated or have been denied appointment prior to 31st March, 2005. For any delay in conclusion of selection the previous pension rules would not get attracted in view of the express stipulation in the statutory rule itself. Date of entry into service would otherwise determine the applicability of pension rules by virtue of the U.P. Retirement Benefits (Amendment) Rules, 2005, notified on 7.4.2005. Petitioners have otherwise accepted the terms of new pension scheme ever since their appointment in the year 2006. No protest of any kind was made during the last fourteen years. Petitioners therefore, have acquiesced to the new pension scheme and they cannot be permitted to resile from its applicability particularly when no challenge is laid to the statutory rule itself. 29. It is otherwise settled that no sympathy can be claimed to override express provisions contained in the applicable pension rules. In a matter arising out of claim of pension the Supreme Court in Sudhir Kumar Consul Vs. Allahabad Bank, (2011) 3 SCC 486 , observed as under:- "31. We have sympathies for the appellant but, in a society governed by Rule of law, sympathies cannot override the Rules and Regulations. We may recall the observations made by this Court while considering the issue of compassionate appointment in public service. 32. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramachhandra Ambekar and Anr. (1994) 2 SCC 718 , wherein the Court observed: "The High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration.... Yielding to instinct will tend to ignore the cold logic of law. It should be remembered that "law is the embodiment of all wisdom". Justice according to law is a principle as old as the hills. The Courts are to administer law as they find it, however, inconvenient it may be." 30. Yielding to instinct will tend to ignore the cold logic of law. It should be remembered that "law is the embodiment of all wisdom". Justice according to law is a principle as old as the hills. The Courts are to administer law as they find it, however, inconvenient it may be." 30. In view of the discussions aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that any delay in selection for appointment, ipso facto, cannot be a ground to extend benefit of old pension scheme notwithstanding the clear stipulation in the pension rule specifying date of entry in service to be determinative of the pension scheme. 31. Writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Order Date :-13.10.2020 Ranjeet Sahu/Ani" 10. In the present case also no case of arbitrariness and discrimination had been made out on the lines noticed hereinabove in other cases. It is not a case of persons similarly situated in the same selection having been discriminated. It is not a case where selectees of a subsequent advertisement were appointed under the Old Pension Scheme while the selection of petitioners was kept pending nor is it a case where any discrimination had been made in this regard. 11. One of the glaring facts is that after issuance of advertisement the petitioner never approached this Court seeking any remedy for expeditious selection and appointment. Even after 2006 they readily accepted their appointment without demunr, meaning thereby, they also accepted the conditions of service applicable including the new post retirement scheme and the fact that the Old Pension Scheme became unavailable to them w.e.f. 01.04.2005 as their appointment was subsequent to it. 12. As observed by the co-ordinate Bench merely because a person has participated in a selection that by itself does not give any right to appointment nor to any benefits accruing therefrom. The fact is that petitioners were appointed in 2006 and not prior to 01.04.2005. 13. Now, after 14 years for the petitioners to come to this Court saying that they should be given the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme is rather belated apart from being impermssible. 14. The plea that the petitioners were absolutely unaware about the conditions of service is hardly acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Ignorance is no excuse in law. 14. The plea that the petitioners were absolutely unaware about the conditions of service is hardly acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Ignorance is no excuse in law. Necessary deductions must have been made from their monthly salary under the New Pension Scheme which would make them fully aware as to what are the dues admissible and payable to them after retirement. Moreover, any conscious and prudent person would inquire about the service and post retirement benefits which they would be entitled to once they enter into service or within a reasonable period of such entrance. 15. Any plea based on Shankarsan Das (supra) had to be raised at the appropriate time which was never done. 16. In view of the above, the case at hand is squarely covered by the decision dated 13.10.2020 rendered in the case of Manoj Kumar Singh (supra) and there is no reason for this Court, in the facts of the present case, to take a view different from what has already taken by a co-ordinate Bench. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed.