JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. Since the common issues are involved in these batch of matters, the same are being heard and disposed of by the common order. 3. Apart from several prayers as made in the individual writ petitions, the common prayers in all these writ petitions are for a direction upon the respondents particularly the Respondent No. 7 to 9 (in W.P.S. No. 3017 of 2021) to refund the contribution of the petitioners in the head of Provident Fund in the G.P.F. Account of the petitioner pursuant to old pension scheme which will be provided to the petitioner along with GPF Account Number since the petitioner has opted for the same. Further prayer has been made for quashing Clause-3 of Resolution vide letter No. 143 dated 05.09.2022, which states that, ^^03- ,u,lMh,y }kjk ljdkjh lsod ds va'knku dh jkf'k fdlh Hkh fLFkfr es izkIr u gksus ij jkT; ljdkj ls bldk nkok ugh fd;k tk ldsxkA^^ And the Clause 3 of format of the said Affidavit enclosed as the Annexure-1 of notification No. 148 dated 21.09.2022 as well, wherein it has been stated that, ^^03- ,u,lMh,y ls esjs va'knku dh jkf'k fdlh Hkh fLFkfr es izkIr u gksus dh fLFkfr es esjs }kjk jkT; ljdkj ls bldk nkok ugh fd;k tk ldsxkA^^ That if the contribution of the employee made to NSDL is not received then in such circumstance employee shall not claim the same from State Government, as this particular clause is arbitrary in nature denying the legitimate right of the employees to claim contribution made by them to NSDL. 4. From perusal of the aforesaid prayers, it appears that the main grievance of the petitioners is regarding consideration of their cases for their coverage under Old Pension Scheme (for short ‘OPS’) which was existed prior to 01.12.2004. 5. Earlier a notification was issued by the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand vide letter No. 143 dated 05.09.2022 whereby Old Pension Scheme was adopted for coverage of employees who have retired from 01.12.2004 till 01.09.2022 shall be considered under OPS. 6. On 04.10.2023, during the course of hearing of the matter, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 7 to 9 produced a copy of the resolution contained in memo No. 157 dated 25.08.2023, issued by the Finance Department, Govt. 6. On 04.10.2023, during the course of hearing of the matter, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 7 to 9 produced a copy of the resolution contained in memo No. 157 dated 25.08.2023, issued by the Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand and submits that by the said resolution, employees of the State Govt. whose appointments were made in terms of the Advertisements/ Appointment Orders issued prior to 01.12.2004 and were appointed on or after 01.12.2004 have been included in the OPS subject to condition that they have to opt and submit application regarding the same to their Appointing Authority/ Department prior to 31.10.2023. It was submitted that the grievances of the writ petitioners have already been redressed. The said resolution was brought by way of supplementary counter-affidavit which is taken on board. 7. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel along with by Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI appearing for respondent Nos. 7 to 9 (in W.P.S. No. 3017 of 2021) jointly submits that in view of resolution dated 25.08.2023, several writ petitions, viz. W.P.(S). No. 2414 of 2020; W.P.(S). No. 2375 of 2021, were dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to pursue the matter before the concerned Department. It was further submitted that since grievances of the petitioners have already been redressed in view of the said resolution, no cause of action has arisen and now, nothing remains to be adjudicated and as such, the present writ petitions shall also be dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. 8. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vociferously argues that the grievances of petitioners have yet not been redressed. Learned counsel submits that redressal of the grievances cannot be conditional. The petitioners cannot get relief at the whims of the respondents. The conditional notification/ resolution is not at all accepted to the petitioners and they are mainly aggrieved by Clause-5( x ) of the Resolution dated 25.08.2023, which needs clarification by this Court. 9. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI appearing for respondent Nos. 7 to 9 (in W.P.S. No. 3017 of 2021) in reply to the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioners emphatically argues that there is no need for any clarification on Clause-5( x ) which is self-explanatory and nothing remains to be clarified. 10. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI appearing for respondent Nos. 7 to 9 (in W.P.S. No. 3017 of 2021) in reply to the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioners emphatically argues that there is no need for any clarification on Clause-5( x ) which is self-explanatory and nothing remains to be clarified. 10. Though as per the contention of learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos. 7 to 9 (in W.P.S. No. 3017 of 2021), no clarification is required but this Court feels that from perusal of Clause-5( x ) of Resolution dated 25.08.2023, it appears that it is conditional, which reads as under: 5¼x½ & PRAN es tek jkf'k dh okilh Hkfo"; fuf/k funs'kky; ds vkns'k la[;k 47 fnukad 04-02-2015 ds izko/kkuksa ds vkyksd esa dh tk,xh c'krsZ /kkjd }kjk tek jkf'k ykHk lfgr mlds Hkfo"; fuf/k [kkrs esa rFkk ljdkj }kjk fd;s x; va'knku dh jkf'k ykHk lfgr jkT; ljdkj ds [kkrs esa tek dj fn;k tk,xkA 11. From the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the parties, it appears that there is no quarrel regarding consideration of the cases of the employees of State of Jharkhand regarding their coverage under OPS who have been appointed in view of the Advertisements/ Orders of Appointment issued before 01.12.2004, which is clear from Clause-4 of the notification/ resolution dated 25.08.2023, which reads as under: 4- mi;qZDr ifjis{; esa oSls jkT; ljdkj ds deh] ftudh fu;qfDr fnuakd 01-12-2004 ds iwoZ fuxZr HkrhZ foKkiu@fu;qfDr vkns'k ds vkyksd es gqbZ gks] dks iqjkuh isa'ku ;kstuk vuqekU; djrs gq, ,uih,l [kkrs es tek jkf'k dh okilh dk izLrko jkT; ljdkj ds le{k fopkjk/khu FkkA 12. The issue regarding extending the benefits of OPS instead of New Pension Scheme (for short ‘NPS’) fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C). No. 756 of 2020 (Dr. Davinder Singh Brar Vs. Union of India & Ors.), decided on 28.01.2020, in which the Hon’ble Court taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned CGSC as well as learned counsel for the parties observed that in series of the orders this Court has considered the cases for extension of benefits of OPS from the date of participation in the examination. In case of Naveen Kumar Jha Vs. Union of India [W.P.(C). In case of Naveen Kumar Jha Vs. Union of India [W.P.(C). No. 3827 of 2012], disposed of on 02.11.2012, it was held that on account of delay in the authorities having him examined by a Review Medical Board, it was held that the petitioner would be covered by OPS. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has further observed that: 6. By a subsequent order dated 12th February, 2015 in W.P.(C) 3834/2013 (Parmanand Yadav v. Union of India) in the context of SIS of the Border Security Force (“BSF”) whose letters of appointment were delayed beyond 1st January, 2004, it was held that they too would be covered by the OPS. The BSF accepted this and other judgments that followed and its Director General (‘DG’) issued an order dated 13th January, 2016 in which inter alia it was stated: “Now, therefore, in respectful compliance of order dated 12.02.2015, passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, approval of Competent Authority i.e. Ministry of Home Affairs is hereby conveyed to convert the petitioners and other similarly situated SI/DE selected through CPOs Exam-2002 (as per list enclosed at Appendix A) as members of the old pension scheme, which was in vogue till 31/12/2003 and the NPS corpus which were earlier subscribed should be transferred to the GPF accounts of each individual, subject to the condition that they will not be entitled for any back wages or seniority etc.” 7. Subsequently, after a judgment dated 27th March, 2017 of this Court in the case of Inspectors of the BSF in W.P.(C) 2810/2016 (Inspector Rajendra Singh v. Union of India), the Ministry of Home Affairs (‘MHA’) issued an Office Memorandum (‘OM’) dated 13th April, 2018, accepting the said judgment for implementation and inter alia directing as under: “5. Now, Competent authority desires that all other CAPFs (except BSF) may also check their record and if any similar case is found they may examine & take appropriate action on the similar lines by taking reliance of BSF case, to avoid similar litigation in future.” 8. Another order dated 16th October, 2018 was issued by the BSF implementing the decisions of this Court extending the benefit of the OPS in the case of Head Constable (Radio Operators) who had been selected prior to 1st January, 2004 but issued appointment letters thereafter. 9. Another order dated 16th October, 2018 was issued by the BSF implementing the decisions of this Court extending the benefit of the OPS in the case of Head Constable (Radio Operators) who had been selected prior to 1st January, 2004 but issued appointment letters thereafter. 9. This Court, in the context of certain Constables of BSF, by a judgment dated 12th February, 2019 in W.P.(C) 6680/2017 (Tanaka Ram v. Union of India) allowed the prayers of those Petitioners and held that they should be covered by the OPS. The order of this Court in Tanaka Ram (supra) was affirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissal of S.L.P. (CC) Diary No. 25228/2019 (Union of India v. Tanaka Ram) on 2nd September, 2019. 10. In W.P.(C) 1358/2017 (Shyam Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India), relief similar to the one sought in the present case was being claimed by certain Assistant Commandants in the CRPF, who had successfully cleared the examinations of 2003. They were, however, offered letters of appointment after January, 2004. By an order dated 9th April, 2019, their petition was allowed by this Court. That order has been affirmed by the Supreme Court inasmuch as S.L.P. (C) 31539/2019 filed by Union of India has been dismissed by an order dated 27th November, 2019. 11. More recently, this Court by its decision dated 13th January, 2020 in W.P.(C) 337/2020 (Vikash Kumar v. Union of India) has held similarly situated personnel of the Central Industrial Security Force (‘CISF’), which is also a CAPF, to be entitled to be extended the benefits under the OPS, instead of the NPS.” 13. Upon a careful consideration of the judgment cited above it appears that the Hon’ble Court has held that it is not the crucial date which is important but it is the recruitment process which was started or initiated by way of publication of advertisement prior to that crucial date is to be taken into consideration for extending the benefits, meaning thereby benefits must be extended by taking into consideration the period during which selection process took place and not when the same was concluded and appointment order was given. 14. After considering aforesaid earlier orders the Hon’ble Delhi High Court issued a direction to extend the benefits of OPS to the petitioner in terms of the CCS (Pensions) Rules, 1972 by issuing appropriate orders. 14. After considering aforesaid earlier orders the Hon’ble Delhi High Court issued a direction to extend the benefits of OPS to the petitioner in terms of the CCS (Pensions) Rules, 1972 by issuing appropriate orders. In the said order no condition was imposed for extending the benefits of OPS. The order of Hon’ble Delhi Court was affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C). No. 173 of 2021 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dr. Davinder Singh Brar). 15. This Court in W.P.(S). No. 1869 of 2017 (Lalit Kumar Jha & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) disposed of on 03.07.2017 and in W.P.(S). No. 2797 of 2017 (Sanjari Bano Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), disposed on 25.11.2019, was of the view that the date on which the appointment letters were issued which was prior to 2004 should be treated as the notional date of appointment meaning thereby any Advertisements/ Orders of Appointment issued prior to 2004 shall be considered to be the date of notional appointment and there is no embargo in treating them as appointed prior to 2004 and extending the benefits of OPS. 16. Thereafter, the State Govt. came with notification dated 05.09.2022 for extending the benefits of Old Pension Scheme which was conditional. Thereafter, several writ petitions were filed including the present batch of matters and the earlier notification of the State Govt. was modified and in a new Resolution dated 25.08.2023 came into existence. 17. As the petitioners were aggrieved by Clause-5( x ) of the said resolution, a specific reply was sought for from the respondent Nos. 7 to 9. It has been stated by respondent Nos. 7 to 9 (in W.P.S. No. 3017 of 2021) that the respondents above-named have no objection as the pension corpus of such eligible employees of the State Govt. covered under NPS, in respect of whom the above mentioned O.M. (dealing with employees whose process of appointment commenced prior to 01.12.2004) is applicable shall be eligible to go out of NPS, in terms of the decision of the State Govt., as conveyed therein. In such circumstances, the nodal office of the State Govt. shall have the option to take full remittance of the pension corpus (covering employee and employer contribution and accretion thereon) in accordance with the applicable process envisaged and give appropriate accounting treatment as is required to give effect. In such circumstances, the nodal office of the State Govt. shall have the option to take full remittance of the pension corpus (covering employee and employer contribution and accretion thereon) in accordance with the applicable process envisaged and give appropriate accounting treatment as is required to give effect. This process is automatic and there is no need for any clarifications or instructions, to be given by the respondents above-named for remittance of the amounts involved. 18. If such is the position as stated by the respondent Nos. 7 to 9 (in W.P.S. No. 3017 of 2021), there was no occasion to insert Clause-5(( x ) in the said Resolution dated 25.08.2023. The respondent-State have inserted the condition “ c'krsZ ”, which ought not to have been inserted if respondent Nos. 7 to 9 (in W.P.S. No. 3017 of 2021) are accepting that the entire process/ transaction is automatic. 19. This Court is of the view that the word “ c'krsZ ” should be deleted and is hereby ordered to be deleted and Clause-5(( x ) of the Resolution dated 25.08.2023 be read as if the said word was not there. If the word “ c'krsZ is removed from Clause-5( x ) nothing remains to be decided by this Court thereafter. 20. In view of the aforesaid observations and directions, the petitioners along with others who have not even approached this Court and those who have withdrawn their writ petitions filed before this Court to approach the respondent-authorities for redressal of their grievances, are covered by this order of the Court and the benefits of Old Pension Scheme shall be extended to all the employees who are covered by Clause-4 of the Resolution dated 25.08.2023. 21. The respondents are directed to issue a fresh resolution by deleting the word “ c'krsZ from the Clause-5( x ) of the Resolution dated 25.08.2023. 22. Accordingly, all these writ petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. 23. Pending I.As., if any, stand closed.