2L. On the other hand, learned Goverr ment Pleader for Services-}, appearillg for respondent No.1 vr:hemently argued that the :rpplicability of the Pension Scheme is not mentioned in the notilicatron, dated ),9.O1.2OO4 issued bv District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, but the same wasi melltioned in the individual appointment letters that the candict,rles appointed to post is covered by Contributory Pension Sicherne and the existing pension scheme as per A.P. Revisc<l Pension Rules, 1980 wili not be applicable to them as per t he rnstructions issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.655, ,latcd 22.O9.2004. She further contended that the petitioners i aving knowledge about non applicability of the provisions oi the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Now they cannot c krim that their appointments are subject to applicability of o1<l pe nslon scheme. As a result their claim for applicability of the r,lr[ scheme is not acceptable. He further contended that,he said Office Memorandum, dated 17.02.2020 and G.O.NIs;.No.655, dated 22.09.2OO4 are subsequent to the Office MerrLorandum, dated 03.03.2023 which was not adopted by th,: Government of Telangan:r.'lherefore, the respondents case i:; that these office Memorandum were not adopted by Governme nt of Telangana, which isjssued by the Deputy Secretary to Gor e rnnrent of India
