ORDER : NUPUR BHATI, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “It most humble and is therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed; and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:- (a) The record of the case may kindly be called for; (b) The Order dated 15.02.2021 (Annex.14) passed by the respondent No.3 may kindly be quashed and set aside; (c) The respondents may kindly be directed to treat/cover the services of the petitioner under the old pension scheme in pursuance of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996; d) The respondents may kindly be directed to treat the services of the petitioner at par with the other candidates selected on the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade- II vide Order dated 29.09.2003 (Annex.01) for all purposes; e) The respondents may be restrained from acting in a discriminatory prejudicing the petitioner: manner and f) Any other appropriate writ or order direction which is favorable to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner. g) That the costs of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts, as stated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was duly selected for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II through the prescribed selection process. Vide appointment order dated 29.09.2003 (Annexure-1), issued strictly in accordance with the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1981 [as amended], the petitioner was formally appointed along with 83 other selected candidates. The petitioner's name appears at Serial No.60 in the said list. These vacancies unequivocally pertained to previous financial years (prior to 2003- 04). Crucially, candidates ranked below Serial No.60 in this very appointment order have been accorded seniority below the petitioner in the official seniority list of Assistant Public Prosecutors maintained by the respondent department, thereby affirming the petitioner's position based on the date of selection/appointment order. At the material time, the petitioner was in an advanced stage of pregnancy and medically unfit to join service. She promptly applied for extension of joining time on genuine medical grounds, supported by requisite medical certificates. The respondents, appreciating the petitioner's medical condition, accepted her request and issued extension order dated 23.10.2003, thereby extending her joining time by two months (i.e., up to approximately December 2003). She promptly applied for extension of joining time on genuine medical grounds, supported by requisite medical certificates. The respondents, appreciating the petitioner's medical condition, accepted her request and issued extension order dated 23.10.2003, thereby extending her joining time by two months (i.e., up to approximately December 2003). This extension was a formal administrative act pursuant to the original appointment order dated 29.09.2003. The petitioner gave birth to a baby boy on 08.11.2003, which event is squarely within the extended joining period granted by the respondents. Upon recovery and attaining medical fitness post-delivery, the petitioner submitted her formal joining report on 22.12.2003 before the Secretariat, Jaipur (Law Department). This joining was within the extended timeframe approved by the respondents. The petitioner obtained medical fitness certificate from the competent medical authority and revisited the office of respondent No.2 (Directorate of Prosecution) on 27.12.2003 to complete formalities, thereby unequivocally reporting for duty. Consequent to the original appointment order dated 29.09.2003 and the petitioner's joining, respondent No.2 issued posting order dated 12.01.2004, appointing the petitioner to the vacant post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II in the Court of ACJ (JD) JM-2, Sri Ganganagar. The petitioner assumed charge forthwith and has been continuously serving since. From the inception of her service, the petitioner's emoluments were governed by the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (old pension scheme). Pursuant thereto, monthly General Provident Fund (GPF) deductions were regularly effected from her salary and contributions under State Insurance Scheme were also deducted. No intimation of any contributory pension scheme was ever conveyed during initial service years. Subsequently, the State Government issued notification dated 14.01.2004 amending the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, and vide memorandum dated 28.01.2004, formally introduced Contributory Pension Scheme (New Pension Scheme - NPS) applicable to appointments made after 01.01.2004. After nearly 18 years of uninterrupted service under the 1996 Rules, the respondents vide order dated 15.02.2021 unilaterally communicated to the petitioner that her services would henceforth be governed by the new contributory pension scheme. The respondents took the patently erroneous stand that the petitioner's "appointment was made vide order dated 14.01.2004 i.e. after 01.01.2004", deliberately conflating the subsequent posting order with the original appointment order dated 29.09.2003 (pre-dating 01.01.2004) and the instant writ petition has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was offered appointment vide order dated 29.09.2003 (Annex.1) along with 83 other candidates. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was offered appointment vide order dated 29.09.2003 (Annex.1) along with 83 other candidates. He contends that the respondents' action in treating the petitioner's date of appointment as 12.01.2004 is arbitrary and unjust. He further submits that in the seniority list prepared for the year 2017, the petitioner's name appears at S.No. 118, and the other candidates named in the appointment order dated 29.09.2003 (Annex.1) also feature in the said list, with their selection year treated as 2012-2013. Thus, he argues, the respondents have effectively considered the petitioner's appointment as effective from 29.09.2003 while preparing the seniority list. Additionally, he points out that the petitioner was granted benefits under the Old Pension Scheme from her appointment until 21.10.2020, as evidenced by the impugned order dated 21.10.2020 (Annex.12). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner could not join before the cut-off date of 31.10.2003 due to her pregnancy. The respondents extended the joining date by two months, following which the petitioner submitted an application on 27.12.2003 requesting permission to join. He states that, after a delay of 16 days, the respondents issued the order dated 12.01.2004, posting her at ACJ (JD) JM-2, Sri Ganganagar, and the petitioner joined on 19.01.2004. 5. Learned counsel submits that, pursuant to the Notification dated 14.01.2004 amending the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, which took effect from 01.01.2004, the respondents have placed the petitioner under the New Pension Scheme by treating her date of appointment as 19.01.2004. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State counters that since the petitioner did not join service by the cut-off date of 31.10.2003 and instead joined on 19.01.2004 (Annex.9), after 01.01.2004, she is correctly governed by the New Pension Scheme. He submits that the petitioner joined service on 19.01.2004 with full knowledge of the posting order dated 12.01.2004 (Annex.8) and remained silent thereafter. It was only in 2021 that she claimed benefits under the Old Pension Scheme, despite being aware of the Notification dated 14.01.2004, which mandates the New Pension Scheme for appointments after 01.01.2004. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner was offered appointment as Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) vide order dated 29.09.2003 (Annex.1) under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978. Due to her pregnancy, she could not join by 31.10.2003. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner was offered appointment as Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) vide order dated 29.09.2003 (Annex.1) under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978. Due to her pregnancy, she could not join by 31.10.2003. Upon her request, the respondents granted a two- month extension. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application dated 27.12.2003 (Annex.6) seeking permission to join. She has also placed on record the departmental note-sheets (Annex.7), which reflect that her application was submitted on 27.12.2003, but the posting order was issued only on 12.01.2004 after a delay of 16 days, assigning her to Sri Ganganagar. Notably, this application predates the Notification dated 14.01.2004. It is undisputed that the petitioner has been accorded seniority and other benefits on par with similarly situated candidates from the order dated 29.09.2003. In the provisional seniority list as on 01.04.2017 (Annex.15), candidates from the 2003 order have been placed senior or junior to her, with the selection year reckoned as 2012-13. In The landmark case addressing discrimination against pregnant women in employment titled Air India v. Nergesh Meerza : (1981) 4 SCC 335 passed the Hon’ble Apex Court struck down regulations terminating air hostesses upon first pregnancy as arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, holding that pregnancy-a natural consequence of marriage-cannot justify adverse employment action or differential treatment The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed: "The termination of the services of [employees] on the ground of pregnancy is manifestly unreasonable and wholly arbitrary." This principle applies not only to termination of service due to pregnancy but squarely to the facts of the present case. Denying scheme entitlements on account of pregnancy-related delays in joining would tantamount to penalizing women for physiological conditions beyond their control. The petitioner was unable to join by the cut-off date due to circumstances beyond her control and cannot, therefore, be denied the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme extended to similarly situated candidates named in the order dated 29.09.2003. 9. In view of the foregoing, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 15.02.2021 (Annex.14) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to extend to the petitioner the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme. Stay application, as well as any other pending application, if any, stand disposed of.