ups_00049 — Admittedly for a fault fully attributable to the Respondent in not giving wide publicity and not informing Applicant for exercise of option to be governed by the Old Pension Rules, 1972, the Applicant cannot be deprived of the benefits available under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972

Admittedly for a fault fully attributable to the Respondent in not giving wide publicity and not informing Applicant for exercise of option to be governed by the Old Pension Rules, 1972, the Applicant cannot be deprived of the benefits available under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 — This chunk pertains to the resolution of an Original Application (OA) filed by Ms. Renu Joseph against the Union of India, regarding a pension issue. The applicant was initially enrolled in the New P... — Facts: This application has been accompanied by an M.A. No. 976 of 2025 for condonation of delay of 87 days reckoned from the date of issue of the impugned order after discounting the admissible period, while the subject matter pertains to application of the old pension rules in respect of the Applicant, which is of 20 years old. Respondents resisted the MA for condonation of delay. The Applicant relied upon the continued cause of action and took the support of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Tarsem Singh [ 2008 ] (8) SCC 648 ] and O.A. No. 824 of 2025 Baby v. Union of India and others vide order, dated 3-4-2025. The cause of action is relating to pension-recurring cause and there is exception to principle of limitation as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India and others v. Tarsem Singh [ 2008 (8) SCC 648 ] and O.A. No. 824 of 2025 Baby v. Union of India and others vide order, dated 3-4-2025. In this case, option was sought in respect of those in whose case the process of recruitment started anterior to 1-1-2004 but appointment fructified posterior to 1-1-2004 and in respect of these cases an option was given for being governed by the OPS which the Applicant had been afforded and this option was as per a communication of November, 2023 and rejection of the representation of the Applicant was passed in 2024 and thus, the case has been held to be within limitation. As regards the main matter, the Applicant along with 14 others was appointed as Ayah vide order, dated 9-12-2004 governed by the New Pension Scheme, effective from 1-1-2004. Respondent No. 1 issued OM, dated 3-3-2023 for coverage under CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, in place of NPS of those Central Government employees who were recruited against posts advertised for recruitment on or before 22-12-2003 and decided in all cases where Central Government civil employees have been appointed against a post or vacancy which was advertised prior to the date of notification for NPS, i.e. 22-12-2003 and covered by NPS on joining service on or after 1-1-2004 may be given a One Time Option to be covered under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (now 2021) and this option may be exercised by the concerned Government servants latest by 31-8-2023. The Applicant submitted letter, dated 21-9-2023 which was rejected though in another case, such option exercised after the cut-off date was allowed. Per contra, the Respondents have filed the counter- reply affidavit stating that the Applicant, MTS, submitted option form for OPS on 21-9-2023, whereas option was to be exercised latest by 31-8-2023 as per OM, dated 3-3-2023 and no date was extended as per OM, dated 7-11-2023 to submit option for OPS. Respondents have further stated in the written statement in case of Ms. Manju Bala, LMA (Batchmate of the Applicant), application to exercise option for OPS received on 14-9-2023 after 31-8-2023, the cut-off date, but not to discriminate Ms. Manju Bala, option was accepted even after cut-off date. Whereas, in case of Applicant received option after case of Ms. Manju Bala processed and same was rejected vide impugned order, dated 20-11-2023. Rejoinder has been filed by the Applicant to counter-reply stating that Respondents have discriminated Applicant whereas in case of batchmate namely Ms. Manju Bala accepted on 14-9-2023 belated exercise of option for OPS after cut-off date 31-8-2023 prescribed by OM, dated 3-3-2023. There is no special reason given by Respondents to accept belated option form from batchmate Ms. Manju Bala and in case of Applicant discriminated and rejected, no wide publicity was given to OM, dated 3-3-2023 and Applicant's mother was suffering from asthma and there is valid reason to submit option for OPS, belatedly as Respondents have not denied the averments related to not giving wide publicity of OM, dated 3-3-2023.