ups_01180 — Selection for appointment made after introduction of the NPS cannot confer any right upon the Applicants to claim the benefits of Old Pension Scheme as per DoP&T, OM, dated 3-3-2023

Selection for appointment made after introduction of the NPS cannot confer any right upon the Applicants to claim the benefits of Old Pension Scheme as per DoP&T, OM, dated 3-3-2023 — This chunk discusses a case where Applicants sought the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) under a 2023 OM, relying on precedents where advertisements for vacancies were issued before the introd... — Facts: The Applicants were selected as Assistants (now ASOs) in the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) against vacancies initially meant to be filled through the Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE)-2004. These vacancies were notified by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) on 18-10-2003, i.e., prior to the introduction of the National Pension Scheme (NPS) on 22-12-2003. The Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) had also confirmed its participation in CGLE-2004 and reported 389 vacancies for the CSS cadre. However, due to delays in reporting vacancies by cadre units, the posts could not be filled through CGLE-2004. Consequently, with the consent of DoP&T, SSC carried forward the same vacancies to be filled through CGLE-2005. Notably, the SSC advertisement for CGLE-2005, dated 23-7-2005 contained a specific note excluding the CSS Assistant posts as fresh vacancies, thereby clarifying that they were in continuation of the 2003 notification. Relying on the Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare OM, dated 3-3-2023, which allowed a one-time option for coverage under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (now 2021) for posts advertised prior to 22-12-2003, the Applicants submitted representations. Their claim was, however, rejected by DoP&T on 30-10-2023 on the ground that they were selected through CGLE-2005. Aggrieved by the same, the Applicants have filed the present OA. The learned Counsel for the Applicants argued that denial of Old Pension Scheme (OPS) benefits is arbitrary and discriminatory, since employees in comparable situations in other Ministries - such as Defence, Railways and Ammunition Factory - have already been granted OPS coverage. These benefits were extended on the basis of the date of notification of vacancies, not the later dates of examination or appointment. To strengthen their case, the Applicants referred to several internal communications of the DoP&T, including letters, dated 15-10-2003, 30-9-2005, and the Annual Report for 2005-2006, which, according to them, establish that their appointments relate to the 2004 Select List. They also placed reliance on judicial precedents:

(i) the Delhi High Court judgment, dated 2-2-2021 in Dilip Kumar Singh and others v. Union of India and others (W.P. (C) No. 1037/2020 and batch),

(ii) the CAT Principal Bench order, dated 20-3-2023 in Narender Kumar Yadav v. UOI and others (OA No. 3735/2018), and

(iii) the CAT Ernakulam Bench order, dated 15-2-2016 in Sheeba B and another v. Union of India and others. Opposing grant of relief, the learned Counsel for the Respondents argued that the Applicants' claim for Old Pension Scheme (OPS) benefits is untenable as they were selected through SSC CGLE-2005, the notification for which was issued between 23 - 29 July 2005, well after the introduction of the New Pension Scheme (NPS) on 22-12-2003. Although DoP&T had confirmed its participation in CGLE-2004, the vacancies for the post of Assistants in the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) were not reported in time. Consequently, no recruitment for CSS took place through CGLE-2004. The vacancies that could not be filled, were later carried forward and reported to SSC only in May 2007 for filling through CGLE-2005, after finalization of data from cadre units. Hence, the 389 vacancies cited by the Applicants were never notified or advertised in 2004 and cannot form the basis for OPS coverage. The Respondents further contended that the judgments relied upon by the Applicants are distinguishable, as the entire recruitment process, including notification, had commenced prior to 1-1-2004, which is not the case of the present Applicants. In the present case, the process of recruitment began only in 2005. Additionally, the Original Application is also barred by limitation, as the Applicants filed it after inordinate and unexplained delay without seeking condonation of delay. The Applicants filed rejoinder to the reply statement. The learned Counsel for the Applicants emphasized that the 389 vacancies under dispute were part of the CGLE-2004 recruitment cycle, citing DoPT's own records such as letters, dated 15-10-2003 and 30-9-2005, along with the DoP&T Annual Report of 2005-2006, which categorically described the posts as belonging to the 2004 Select List. He further contended that, as per the DoP&T OM, dated 3-3-2023, the decisive factor for pension coverage is the original date of vacancy notification, not the year of examination or appointment. Additionally, he highlighted that all Applicants had already exercised their one-time option before their respective cadre units in accordance with the OM, dated 5-9-2023, which designated the concerned Ministry / Department as the competent authority.