JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsels for the respective parties. 2. In the present writ petition, on 10.05.2023 following order was passed : “Short question for consideration in the present petition is whether petitioner is entitled to Old Pension Scheme or New Pension Scheme. Undisputedly the petitioner was appointed in the year 2007. Whereas, the New Pension Scheme was introduced in the year 2005. On this point Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Rajmati Devi and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 3900-3901 of 2022) decided on 20.05.2022, held that such of those appointees who are appointed subsequent to the introduction of New Pension Scheme they are not entitled to Old Pension Scheme. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner is hereby directed to examine and make his submission on the next date of hearing. Relist this matter on 21.06.2023.” 3. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 1997, certain appointment orders were issued in the year 1999 to the extent of appointing 40 candidates out of 119 candidates whose names were reflected in the panel. For remaining candidates appointment, there were certain litigations. Pursuant to the judicial order, petitioners were appointed in the year 2007. In this backdrop, question for consideration is whether petitioners are governed by Old Pension Scheme or New Pension Scheme. 4. Admittedly, petitioners were appointed in the year 2007 and as on the date of their appointment New Pension Scheme was already introduced. The pension is required to be determined with reference to date of appointment and not date of advertisement in the light of various provisions of the Bihar Pension Rules. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that several candidates have been extended benefit of Old Pension Scheme even though they were appointed after introduction of New Pension Scheme. If there is any error committed by the authorities and extended the benefit of Old Pension Scheme, it amounts to illegal action. Illegality cannot be perpetuated by the judicial forum as held by the Apex Court in the case of R. Muthukumar and Others vs. Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 151. 6. If there is any error committed by the authorities and extended the benefit of Old Pension Scheme, it amounts to illegal action. Illegality cannot be perpetuated by the judicial forum as held by the Apex Court in the case of R. Muthukumar and Others vs. Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 151. 6. That apart, it is to be noted that if the petitioners’ appointment is by virtue of judicial order, in such an event petitioners’ prayer should have been to appoint them with retrospective date, the date on which other similarly situated persons were appointed. In other words, if petitioners’ appointment relates back prior to introduction of New Pension Scheme, in such an event, this Court would have appreciated that the petitioners are entitled to Old Pension Scheme. On the other hand, petitioners were appointed in the year 2007 and it is subsequent to the introduction of New Pension Scheme. 7. Moreover, the petitioners have not assailed the date of order of their appointment and to rectify the same prior to introduction of New Pension Scheme. In the light of these facts and circumstances read with the Apex Court decision in the case of State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Rajmati Devi and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 3900-3901 of 2022) decided on 20.05.2022, the petitioners have not made out a case. 8. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.