JUDGMENT : (1) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record. (2) The issue involved in the above-captioned petitions concerns applicability of New Pension Scheme to the Assistant Teacher/ Head Master employed in Primary Schools in the State who admittedly joined after 01.04.2005. The entire controversy revolves around the notification/Government Order dated 28.03.2005, which is under challenged in the above-captioned writ petitions, issued by the State Government in relation to adoption of Defined Contribution Pension Scheme on the lines of the Government of India notification as well as consequential orders issued by the authorities of the State/Basic Education Officer concern in furtherance of the aforesaid Government Order dated 28.03.2005 for proper implementation of the Defined Contribution Pension Scheme in place of existing Old Pension Scheme. (3) Apparently, by the Government Order dated 28.03.2005, the State Government has mandated that w.e.f. 1st of April, 2005, the new Defined Contribution Pension Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “New Pension Scheme") would compulsorily apply to all new recruits to the service of the State Government and of all State controlled autonomous and State-aided private educational institutions, where the existing pension scheme is patterned on the scheme for Government employees and is funded by the consolidated fund of the State Government. (4) In furtherance to the impugned notification dated 28.03.2005, the State Government has passed consequential order dated 16.12.2022, directing that without registration of the Permanent Retirement Account Number (PRAN) under New Pension Scheme of the Teachers after 01.04.2005, their salary may not be drawn. Pursuant to this order dated 16.12.2022, the Finance Controller, Basic Shiksha Parishad, Prayagraj, vide order dated 22.12.2022, directed all the District Basic Education Officers and Finance & Accounts Officer for ensuring the compliance of para-3 (v) of order dated 16.12.2022. Thereafter, respective consequential orders, impugned in the above-captioned writ petitions, have been passed by the Basic Education Officer and Finance and Accounts Officers of each district of the State for implementation of the impugned order dated 16.12.2022. (5) Shri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Durga Prasad Shukla representing the petitioners has drawn attention to impugned notification dated 28.03.2005 and has argued that the New Pension Scheme has been made effective in Uttar Pradesh from 01.04.2005 vide impugned notification dated 28.03.2005, which is on the basis of a defined contribution and has two tiers i.e. Tier-I and Tier-II. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the contribution to Tier-I is mandatory for Government servant, who joined Government service on or after 01.04.2005 i.e. the date on which State Government adopted the New Pension Scheme, whereas Tier-II is optional and is at the discretion of the Government servant. Learned Counsel submits that on adoption of the New Pension Scheme by the State Government, a corresponding amendment was made in the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 and General Provident Fund Rules, 1985 w.e.f. 01.04.2005, however, in the said amendment, nothing has been stated about New Pension Scheme and only stated that these Rules will not be applicable to the employees who join services on or after 01.04.2005. (6) Elaborating his submission, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners has argued that under the New Pension Scheme, both the employee and employer make predetermined contribution towards the scheme and the asset Managers manages the investment on the basis of their wisdom. Learned Counsel submits that in India, the downward prediction of interest rules has increased the liability of the pension providers. The contributions are invested in a predefined asset and managed by the pension fund managers. However, the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority established on 23.08.2003 has forbidden any minimum guaranteed return under the New Pension Scheme. According to learned Senior Counsel, under the New Pension Scheme, the current status of economy is uncertain and requirement is there for converting the scheme to an assured pension scheme, however, the Government, through the New Pension Scheme, is using public money to help those who profit through speculation in the share market at the cost of vulnerable government employees. In this backdrop, his submission is that the fund managers in their independent wisdom make some decision which results in less accumulated money invested and consequently causes a very low pension to the ex-employees who gave their entire life to the employer and this hardship and ambiguity cannot be permitted to be done by the State, which is a welfare State. Thus, the impugned notification dated 28.03.2005 being unreasonable, irrational and also as being defeating the very purpose and objective of the pension scheme is liable to be quashed. Thus, the impugned notification dated 28.03.2005 being unreasonable, irrational and also as being defeating the very purpose and objective of the pension scheme is liable to be quashed. (7) The next submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that Old Pension Scheme is applicable to the employees who joined and worked till 31.03.2005 as well as the MPs and MLAs, hence providing other persons a fixed income through pension and depriving the petitioners of the fixed assured pension is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (8) Learned Senior Counsel inviting our attention to para-3 (v) of the Government Order dated 16.12.2022 has argued that para-3 (v) of the Government Order dated 16.12.2022 imposes a condition that without registration in PRAN of the Teachers appointed after 01.04.2005, their salary may not be drawn. According to the learned Senior Counsel, by the order dated 16.12.2022, the petitioners have been compelled to fill up the New Pension Scheme Form for registration in PRAN despite their disagreement for the same. He submits that New Pension Scheme is a share market based scheme, which depends upon up and down of market rates and does not assures the beneficiaries as to what will the proportion of pension to be paid after retirement, hence the aforesaid para-v of the order dated 16.12.2022 is liable to be quashed. (9) Per contra, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel and has argued that the State Government has introduced New Pension Scheme w.e.f. 01.04.2005 vide notification dated 28.03.2005 read with 07.04.2005. In pursuance thereof, the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 and U.P. General Provident Fund Rules, 1985 have been amended w.e.f. 01.04.2005. The employee covered under New Pension Scheme have to compulsorily register their PRAN so that the contribution of the employee is to be deposited in the said account and financial conditions of the retired employee will be strengthened, but even after lapse of long period, some of the employees have not registered their PRAN. According to the learned Standing Counsel, admittedly, the petitioners have been appointed after 01.04.2005 and therefore, they all are covered with the New Pension Scheme and the petitioners were well aware about the existing rules with regard to the pension at the time of entry in the service. According to the learned Standing Counsel, admittedly, the petitioners have been appointed after 01.04.2005 and therefore, they all are covered with the New Pension Scheme and the petitioners were well aware about the existing rules with regard to the pension at the time of entry in the service. According to the learned Standing Counsel, at the time of joining of the service, these petitioners have not raised any objection. In any case, w.e.f 01.04.2005, there was no option available to these petitioners, as it was a condition of service that once the employee is to join a State Government Service/Service of State instrumentalities, they will be governed by the existing service condition. He argued that the petitioners have challenged the impugned notification dated 28.03.2005 after eighteen years of its notification without explaining the delay. He further argued that the other orders which have been challenged by the petitioners, are only the consequential orders implementing the notification dated 28.03.2005. Thus, the above-captioned writ petitions is liable to be dismissed. (10) Learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents submits that the Government Order dated 16.12.2022 has been issued just to make it clear that the employee shall register their PRAN promptly so that data of the employee may be uploaded on the DDO portal and it was also provided in the Government Order dated 16.12.2022 that only after registration of PRAN, salary of the employee will be disbursed. According to him, several writ petitions have been filed by the Teachers challenging the Government Order dated 16.12.2022 particularly Para-3 (v) of the Government Order dated 16.12.2022, in which it was provided that those employees, who have been appointed after 01.04.2005, they have to register their PRAN and without registering PRAN, salary of the employee shall not be paid. Thereafter, the State Government, vide Government Order dated 27.01.2023, has modified the clause 3 (v) of the Government Order dated 16.12.2022 and it was made clear that although all efforts shall be made to register PRAN of the employee, however the salary of the employee would not be withheld on this ground. In this backdrop, it is the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the relief claimed by the petitioners in the above-captioned writ petitions in regard to clause 3 (v) of the Government Order dated 16.12.2022 has become infructuous. In this backdrop, it is the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the relief claimed by the petitioners in the above-captioned writ petitions in regard to clause 3 (v) of the Government Order dated 16.12.2022 has become infructuous. (11) Learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that after the retirement, employees have option to opt the options of annuity (pensionary/maturity benefits) and they can choose it as per their choice. According to him, as per the New Pension Scheme, 85% of the fund are being invested in the Government’s securities, therefore, the effect of the share market is negligible. Moreso, vide Government Order dated 13.02.2019, under the New Pension Scheme, the facility to choose pension fund manager and pattern of investment has been provided to the employees/subscriber. Therefore, the plea of the petitioners in this regard has no substance. (12) Before this Court embarks to decide these bunch of writ petitions, it would be beneficial to consider the concept of pension as has been devolved through various precedents of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the matter of Deokinandan Prasad v. The State of Bihar and others (1971) 2 SCC 330 has held that right to receive pension was property under Article 31(1) and Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India and it was held as under: “27. The last question to be considered, is, whether the right to receive pension by a government servant is property, so as to attract Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. This question falls to be decided in order to consider whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 32. To this aspect, we have already adverted to earlier and we now proceed to consider the same. 33. Having due regard to the above decisions, we are of the opinion that the right of the petitioner to receive pension is property under Article 31(1) and by a mere executive order the State had no power to withhold the same. Similarly, the said claim is also property under Article 19(1)(f) and it is not saved by sub-article (5) of Article 19. Similarly, the said claim is also property under Article 19(1)(f) and it is not saved by sub-article (5) of Article 19. Therefore, it follows that the order, dated June 12, 1968, denying the petitioner right to receive pension affects the fundamental right of the petitioner under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution, and as such the writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable…………” (13) Thereafter, the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the matter of D. S. Nakara & others v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 reiterating the law laid down in Deokinandan Prasad (supra) held as under: - “28. Pensions to civil employees of the Government and the defence personnel as administered in India appear to be a compensation for service rendered in the past. However, as held in Douge v. Board of Education [302 US 74 : 83 L Ed 57] a pension is closely akin to wages in that it consists of payment provided by an employer, is paid in consideration of past service and serves the purpose of helping the recipient meet the expenses of living………. 29. ……Thus the pension payable to a government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation or for service rendered………….” (14) Further, a three-judge Bench of the Apex Court in the matter of State of West Bengal v. Harish C. Banerjee and others (2006)7 SCC 65, relying on Deokinandan Prasad (supra) and D. S. Nakara (supra) held that right to receive pension is a valuable right of the government servant which doesn’t depend upon the sweet will and pleasure of the government and succinctly held as under : - “4. Pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and the pleasure of the Government and to receive pension is a valuable right of a government servant is a well-settled legal proposition. The question in the present case, however, is not about the deprivation of the said right by the Government by an executive order but is about the constitutional validity of Rule 10(1) providing for withholding of pension or part thereof in certain cases. 5. Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) have been repealed by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 w.e.f. 20-6-1979. The right to property is no longer a fundamental right. 5. Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) have been repealed by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 w.e.f. 20-6-1979. The right to property is no longer a fundamental right. It is now a constitutional right, as provided in Article 300-A of the Constitution. Right to receive pension was a fundamental right at the time of framing of the Rules in 1971. The question is whether a rule framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution providing for withholding of the pension would ipso facto be ultra vires, being violative of Article 19(1)(f) as it stood in 1971 when the Rules were framed.” (15) The nature and object of pension was summarized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v. Mangal Singh and others (2011) 11 SCC 702 , wherein his Lordship held as under :- “34. Pension is a retirement benefit partaking of the character of regular payment to a person in consideration of the past services rendered by him. We hasten to add that although pension is not a bounty but is claimable as a matter of right, yet the right is not absolute or unconditional. The person claiming pension must establish his entitlement to such pension in law………… 39. Pension is a periodic payment of an amount to the employee, after his retirement from service by his employer till his death. In some cases, it is also payable to the dependants of the deceased employee as a family pension. Pension is in a nature of right which an employee has earned by rendering long service to the employer. It is a deferred payment of compensation for past service. It is dependable on the condition of rendering of service by the employee for a certain fixed period of time with decent behaviour. Like CPF, the object of providing pensionary benefit under the Pension Scheme is to provide social security to the employee and his family after his retirement from the service. The Government’s/employer’s obligation under the Pension Scheme begins only when the employee retires and it continues till the death of the employee. 49. ……..Pension is not a charity or bounty nor is it a conditional payment solely dependent on the sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendering a long and satisfactory service. It is in the nature of deferred payment for the past services. 49. ……..Pension is not a charity or bounty nor is it a conditional payment solely dependent on the sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendering a long and satisfactory service. It is in the nature of deferred payment for the past services. It is a social security plan consistent with the socio-economic requirements of the Constitution when the employer is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution rendering social justice to a superannuated government servant. It is a right attached to the office and cannot be arbitrarily denied.” (16) This Court finds that the concept and scope of pension had been changing from being a fundamental right to constitutional right, however on each occasion, the Hon’ble Court have held that the right to pension is not absolute or unconditional. The person claiming pension must establish his entitlement to such pension as per the existing rules applicable to an employee of the Central or the State Government. (17) Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record available before this Court in the above-captioned writ petition, it is required to be noted herein that undisputedly, on 01st April 2005, a New Pension Scheme was promulgated vide notification dated 28.03.2005. The petitioners have challenged the notification dated 28.03.2005 on various grounds, by saying that since the provisions made in the erstwhile Scheme were more beneficial and the New Pension Scheme were not beneficial for the petitioners, they would be entitled to claim coverage under the Old Scheme notwithstanding the fact that they ultimately came to be appointed only after 01st April, 2005 and in this view of the matter they challenged the Government Order dated 28.03.2005. For the purposes of answering the question that is raised before this Court, the following skeletal facts may be noticed. For the purposes of answering the question that is raised before this Court, the following skeletal facts may be noticed. (18) It would be relevant to first consider the object of the New Pension Scheme which is specifically mentioned in the notification dated 28.03.2005 issued by the State Government which states as follows :- "State Government on 28.03.2005 has disclosed the object of new pension scheme as follows:- The State Government, in consideration of its long-term fiscal interest and following broadly the pattern adopted by the Central Government has approved the following proposal of introducing a new defined contribution pension system in place of the existing defined benefit pension scheme for new entrances to the service of the State Government and of all State controlled autonomous institutions and State-aided private educational institutions where the existing pension scheme is patterned on the scheme or Government Employees and is funded by the consolidated fund of the State Government. (i) From 1st of April, 2005, the new defined contribution pension system would mandatorily apply to all new recruits to the service of the State Government and of all State controlled autonomous State aided private educational institutions referred to above. However, employees covered by the existing pension scheme whose service would be of less than ten years on 1st April, 2005, may also voluntarily opt for the new pension system in place of the existing pension scheme. (ii) Under the new defined contribution pension system, the employee would make a monthly contributor equal to 10 per cent of the salary and dearness allowance. A matching employer's contribution would be made by the State Government or by the concerned autonomous institution/ private educational institution. However, the State Government would provide grant to the concern autonomous institution/ private educational institution for making employer/s contribution until the institution is in a position to make the contribution itself. The contribution and investment returns would be deposited in an account to be known as pension tier-I account. No withdrawal would be allowed from this account during the service period. The existing provisions of defined benefit pension and GPF would not be available to the new recruits covered by the new defined contribution pension system. (iii) Since new recruits would not be able to subscribe to GPF, they may also have a voluntary tier-II account, in addition to the pension tier-I account. The existing provisions of defined benefit pension and GPF would not be available to the new recruits covered by the new defined contribution pension system. (iii) Since new recruits would not be able to subscribe to GPF, they may also have a voluntary tier-II account, in addition to the pension tier-I account. However, employer would make no contribution to tier-II account. The assets in tier-II account; would be invested/managed through exactly the same procedure of for pensioner-I account. However, the employee would be free to withdraw part or all the "second tier" of his money anytime. (iv) Employee can normally exist tier-I of the pension system at the time of retirement. At exist the employee would be mandatorily required to invest 40 per cent of pension wealth to purchase an annuity from a recognized Insurance company so as to provide for pension for the lifetimes of the employee and his dependent parent and his spouse o at the time of retirement. The remaining pension wealth would, however, be received by the employee as a lump-sum which he would be free to utilize in any manner . In case of employee existing the pension tier-I before retirement, the mandatory annuitisation would be 80 per cent of the pension wealth. (v) There would be several pension fund managers who would offer mainly three categories of investment options. The pension fund managers and the record keeper would jointly give out easily understood information about past performance so that the employee is able to make informed choices of the investment options. 2. The effective date for operationalization of the new pension system shall be 1st of April, 2005." (19) From the aforesaid Government Order dated 28.03.2005, it is evident that the New Pension Scheme was enforced w.e.f. 01.04.2005 and it was mandatorily made applicable to all the new recruits who joined the services after 01.04.2005 with only one exception that the candidates whose service would be less than 10 years on 01.04.2005 an option had been given to them to opt for the New Pension Scheme in place of the existing Pension Scheme. (20) Pursuant to the aforesaid Notification dated 28.3.2005, amendment has been introduced in U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules 1961 known as "U.P. Retirement Benefits (Amendment) Rules, 2005", by the Governor in exercise of power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of Constitution of India. (20) Pursuant to the aforesaid Notification dated 28.3.2005, amendment has been introduced in U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules 1961 known as "U.P. Retirement Benefits (Amendment) Rules, 2005", by the Governor in exercise of power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of Constitution of India. The said Rules have been made applicable w.e.f. 1.4.2005, and it has been clarified therein that Rules shall not apply to employees whether temporary or permanent entering into services on or after 1st April, 2005 in relation to the affairs of State pensionable establishment. Not only this, General Provident Fund (U.P.) Rules 1985 has also been amended by the Governor, in exercise of power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, by means of General Provident Fund (U.P.) (Amendment) Rules, 2005, and these Rules have also been made applicable w.e.f. 1.4.2005. While dealing with conditions of eligibility in Rule-4, a proviso has been appended mentioning therein that no government servant entering into on or after 1st April, 2005 shall subscribe to the fund from the date of joining of service. (21) This Court deem it apt to mention that once a policy decision has been taken to enforce New Pension Scheme, contribution pension system w.e.f. 1st April, 2005 with no exception accorded to new entrants to service and the only exception that has been carved out is in reference of candidates whose service would be of less than ten years on 1st of April, 2005, wherein option has been given to them to voluntarily opt for the new pension system in place of the existing pension scheme. Thus, it is imminently clear that new entrants in service have to necessarily opt for new pension scheme, and have no escape route. (22) In the instant case, it is undisputed that petitioners joined the service after the New Pension Scheme came into force i.e. on 01.04.2005. This Court notes that for the purpose of granting any benefit to the employee of the State, the relevant date is only the date of actual joining as at the time of joining of service, the selected candidate has accepted the terms and conditions of the appointment letter. This Court notes that for the purpose of granting any benefit to the employee of the State, the relevant date is only the date of actual joining as at the time of joining of service, the selected candidate has accepted the terms and conditions of the appointment letter. (23) Admittedly, entry in service of the petitioners has been made after enforcement of new pension scheme and all the petitioners had accepted the terms and conditions of the rules and regulations including pension applicable to the Assistant Teacher employed in the State of U.P. In this view of the matter, petitioners cannot insist that they should be governed under old pension scheme for the reason that New Pension Scheme is not beneficial to them. Further, this court cannot be oblivious to the fact that the petitioners after about more than 18 years from the date of issuance of the notification dated 28.03.2005, have challenged the Government Order dated 28.03.2005, claiming that New Pension Scheme is not beneficial to them and Old Pension Scheme is beneficial to them, which, in my opinion, is not correct because the New Pension Scheme enunciated by the State Government vide Government Order dated 28.03.2005 is a policy with a specific object, as mentioned hereinabove and there is no irrationality in the impugned Government Order dated 28.03.2005. (24) Moreso, it is true that "Recruitment", "Advertisement", "Selection" and "Appointment" are different concepts under the service jurisprudence. "Recruitment" is the process of generating a pool of capable people to apply for employment in organization. Selection forms integral part of recruitment process, wherein from amongst eligible candidates, choice is made of person or persons capable to do the job as per the requirement. The process of selection begins with the issuance of advertisement and ends with the preparation of select list for appointment. "Appointment" is made, after selection process is over, issuance of letter in favour of selected candidates, is an offer to selected candidate to accept the office or position to which he has been selected. On acceptance of the terms and conditions of appointment, the selected candidates on joining has to be accepted as appointed, and he /she would be a new entrant and based on recruitment process, petitioners cannot claim that they be brought within the scope and ambit of old pension rules in place of new pension rules. On acceptance of the terms and conditions of appointment, the selected candidates on joining has to be accepted as appointed, and he /she would be a new entrant and based on recruitment process, petitioners cannot claim that they be brought within the scope and ambit of old pension rules in place of new pension rules. There is no dispute to the fact that process of selection was never altered and the entire selection was undertaken in accordance with the criterion which was laid down at the time of recruitment process. Therefore, assertion of the petitioners that the applicability of New Pension Scheme would amount to change in the terms and conditions of recruitment is also untenable. (25) At this juncture, it would be relevant to add herein that in State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal : (2005) 6 SCC 754 , the Apex Court has held :- "37. In the instant case before us, the cutoff date has been fixed as 1-4-1995 on a very valid ground, namely, that of financial constraints. Consequently, we reject the contention that fixing of the cut-off date was arbitrary, irrational or had no rational basis or that it offends Article 14." (26) In State of Bihar v. Bihar Pensioners Samaj : (2006) 5 SCC 65 , the Apex Court has held :- "17. We think that the contention is well founded. The only ground on which Article 14 has been put forward by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the fixation of the cut-off date for payment of the revised benefits under the two notifications concerned was arbitrary and it resulted in denying arrears of payments to certain Sections of the employees. This argument is no longer res integra. It has been held in a catena of judgments that fixing of a cut-off date for granting of benefits is well within the powers of the Government as long as the reasons therefor are not arbitrary and are based on some rational consideration." (27) The Apex Court, in the case of Sudhir Kumar Kansal Vs. It has been held in a catena of judgments that fixing of a cut-off date for granting of benefits is well within the powers of the Government as long as the reasons therefor are not arbitrary and are based on some rational consideration." (27) The Apex Court, in the case of Sudhir Kumar Kansal Vs. Allahabad Bank : 2011 (2) ESC 243, has held, in the matter of grant of pension, either under the old rule or the new rule, proceeded to mention that in society governed by rule of law sympathies cannot override the Rules and Regulations, and in the said case view has been taken accordingly that appellant was not eligible to claim any benefit under Old Pension Scheme. (28) Thus, this court is of the inevitable conclusion that once New Pension Scheme has been introduced and it has been provided that such incumbents entering into service on or after 1st April, 2005 would be governed under the New Scheme, then, said category of incumbents, as a matter of right, cannot claim legally to be governed under the old scheme, and their claim of pension will fall within the ambit of Rules as has been introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2005. (29) An amendment in the Rules of 1961 was introduced in the year 2005 as per which anyone who joins services of the State after 1.4.2005 would not be entitled to any pension under the Rules of 1961. Rule 2(3) of the Rules of 1961, as amended, reads as under: - "2(3) These Rules shall not apply to employees entering services and posts on or after April 1, 2005 in connection with the affairs of the State, borne on pensionable establishment, whether temporary or permanent." (30) The validity of the aforesaid rules were questioned in series of litigations instituted before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. and others vs. Dukh Haran Singh reported in 2010 (2) AWC 1882 (All) has been pleased to affirm the validity of the amendment incorporated in the Rules of 1961. The matter has travelled upto the Apex Court and the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court has been affirmed. In that view of the matter, anyone who joins in the service of the State of U.P. after 1.4.2005 would not be entitled to benefit of Old Pension Scheme under the Rules of 1961. The matter has travelled upto the Apex Court and the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court has been affirmed. In that view of the matter, anyone who joins in the service of the State of U.P. after 1.4.2005 would not be entitled to benefit of Old Pension Scheme under the Rules of 1961. Since the petitioners’ appointment is after the cut-off date i.e. 1.4.2005 and they have never questioned their appointment so offered, it would not be open for the petitioners to contend now that the benefit of services in the employment of State ought to be granted from a date prior to 1.4.2005. Therefore, the contention in that regard is not liable to be accepted in view of the fact that Division Bench of this Court has already taken a different view and such view has otherwise been affirmed by the Apex Court. (31) This Court is of the considered view that the key to answer the question posed lies in the language employed by Section 2(3) of the 1961 Rules. The decisions noticed above in light of the plain language employed in Rule 2(3) hold that it is only the date on which the incumbent joins service which is relevant for the purposes of adjudging his eligibility to the benefits of the Old or the New Pension Scheme. (32) It is manifest that the applicability of the 1961 Rules is made dependent upon an incumbent actually being recognized as having become a member of the service on or before 1st April 2005. Viewed on its plain language it must be held, as this Court does, that entry into service alone would be determinative and since that event would occur only upon the issuance of an actual appointment letter and consequential joining it is these twin facets alone which would govern the issue of applicability of the Old or New Pension Scheme. Unless an incumbent is formally inducted into service, he cannot be viewed as having become a member thereof or a holder of a post. The expression "entering services or posts..." cannot be understood as referring to or hinging upon something inchoate or nebulous. Till such time as the incumbent accepts the offer of appointment and joins on the post, his position remains that of someone waiting at the threshold. The expression "entering services or posts..." cannot be understood as referring to or hinging upon something inchoate or nebulous. Till such time as the incumbent accepts the offer of appointment and joins on the post, his position remains that of someone waiting at the threshold. It is only once he accepts the appointment, the terms and conditions stipulated therein and joins that he is ordained in service. In view of the aforesaid exposition the Court comes to conclude that the expression "entering" cannot be accorded any other interpretation. (33) The Court additionally notes that the provisions of Rule 2(3) of the 1961 Rules have not been assailed. The judgment therefore must necessarily proceed on the basis of that it is that provision alone which governs and must dictate the answer to the question posited. That Rule, as noted above, clearly refers to entry into service as being the determinative factor. None of the petitioners here are shown to have entered into service prior to 01 April 2005. (34) Insofar as the issue of clause 3 (v) of the Government Order dated 16.12.2022 is concerned, in para-9 of the counter affidavit, specific stand of the State is that the State Government, vide Government Order dated 27.01.2023, has modified the Clause 3 (v) of the Government Order dated 16.12.2022 and it was made clear that efforts shall be made to register PRAN of the employee but the salary of the employee may not be withheld on that count. Thus, the submission in this regard on behalf of the petitioners has become infructuous, more so, the aforesaid Government Order dated 27.01.2023 is not under challenge in the above-captioned writ petitions. (35) In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the firm view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned Government Orders which have been challenged in the above-captioned writ petitions. More so, the learned Counsel for the petitioners have failed to show any ambiguity or arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the impugned Government Orders. (36) The above-captioned writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed leaving it open to the parties to bear their own costs.