new Institute in the sense that it had no relation with the erstwhile NCDM. It, therefore, requires consideration by NIDM whether the services of the Petitioner prior to creation of NIDM can be counted for the purpose of regularisation and other benefits such as pension etc. and whether by virtue of his appointment on 01.01.1999 with NCDM, he can be compelled to opt for the NPS and not be a member of the OPS. In fact, in this context, Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand v. Bir Kuar Paswan and Others, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 2135; and The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Mahendra Kumar Mishra and Ors. Etc. Etc., SLP No.15567/2018 decided on 04.03.2020 [arising out of decision of Patna High Court in Mukteshwar Prasad Singh (supra) ] , wherein it has been held that denial of counting of past services even in another Department in calculating pensionary benefits etc. and implementing the New Pension Scheme without the consent of the employees is wholly unjust and arbitrary. 18. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of at this stage without entering into the merits, directing NIDM to consider the case of the Petitioner and decide whether he is entitled to count his past service from the date of his initial appointment on 01.01.1999 for the purpose of regularisation and other benefits such as promotion, pension etc. and also whether he can be compelled to join the NPS instead of being a member of OPS. The fact that Petitioner has not opted for absorption in NIDM pursuant to notice dated 11.09.2017 whereby NIDM sought willingness from the employees who were not recruited or were not deemed to have been recruited under 2014 Rules for absorption in NIDM, will not be an impediment in this consideration, for the reason given in the earlier part of
