Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
S K Trivedi vs Rural Development on 6 January, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.3665/2023
With
OA No. 3782/2023
Reserved on: 15.12.2025
Pronounced on: 06.01.2026
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
OA No.3665/2023
1. Shri.S.K. Trivedi
S/o Late Shri Om Prakash Sharma
R/o A-19, Single Storey
Maika Ganj, Delhi-11 0007
2: Smt. Suman Chawla
W/o Shri S K Chawla
R/o 43, Upper Ground Floor
Vigyan Vihar Near Yamuna Sports Complex
Delhi-11 0092
3. Shri Bakey Lal
S/o Shri Jayanand
R/o E-1378, Ram Park Extension
Loni, Ghaziabad, UP
4. Shri Som Pal
S/o Shri Budh Singh
R/o. House No 795/213/45, Ward No 30
Near Hanuman Mandir, Rajendra Park
Gurugram, Haryana-122001
5. Shri Ramesh Chander
S/o Shri Bhagirath
R/o Flat No 100, First Floor
Pocket-C, Janta Flats, Group-!
Hastal, Uttam Nagar, West Delhi
Delhi-110059
6. Shri Jagat Singh
S/o Shri Lakhi Ram
R/o Tumsara (85), Khatela Sarai
Palwal, Haryana - 122001 ...... Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Rural Development
2026.01.08
LALIT
16:38:55
GOSAIN
+05'30'
2
Government of India, Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi-11 0001
2. The Director General _
National Institute of Rural Development &
Panchayati Raj (NIRD & PR)
Rajendra Nagar
Hyderbad-500030 -Respondents
OA 3782/2023
l. Ram Singh,
S/o Sh. Nanhey Singh,
aged about 61 years, ,.
Assistant Director (Retd), NIRDPR
R/0- WZ-11981 First Floor,
Nangal Raya Extension,
New Delhi-110046.
2. R.A.S Yadav,
Assistant (Retd) NIRDPR,
Delhi Branch, 4 /288-B, Virat Khand,
Gomti Nagar, Luclnow-226010
3. Smt. Sunita Kakkar,
Employee(Retd) NIRDPR
34-A, DDA Flats,.
Sector 6, Pocket 2,
Dwarka, New Delhi- 75. -Applicants
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Rural Development, Krishi Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001
2. Director General, .
National Institute of Rural Development
& Panchayati Raj (NIRD&PR),
Rajendra Nagar,
Hyderabad-500030, Telangana. . .. . RESPONDENTS
(For Applicants Advocate: Mr. JS Rawat, Ms. Nandini Pandey with
Mr. Girraj Singh Yadav
For Respondents Advocate: Mr. Ashok Kumar for R1
2026.01.08
LALIT
16:38:55
GOSAIN
+05'30'
3
ORDER
The issue in both the aforesaid OAs is the same and hence with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, both the captioned OAs have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the National Institute of Rural Development & Panchayati Raj (NIRD & PR) was established by the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 at Hyderabad vide Registration No. 229/1965. NIRD & PR adopted the General Pension Fund vide Office Order No. 5 dated 01.05.1985. The Council for Advancement of People's Action and Rural Technology (CAPART) was established by the Ministry of Rural Development and registered in Delhi under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 vide Registration No. S-17034/1986.
3. The applicants joined CAPART between 1984 and 1986 on various posts and subsequently retired from service after their absorption in NIRD & PR following the merger of CAPART. All applicants joined service prior to 31.12.2003. In the 49th Executive Committee meeting of CAPART held on 24.08.2009, reorganization and stoppage of project funding was discussed. The Cabinet decided to wind up CAPART on 13.09.2013, and later, the Prime Minister's Office suggested its merger with NIRD & PR in the meeting held on 09.02.2017. Subsequently, the Executive Committee of NIRD & PR (17.07.2018) and the General Body of CAPART (28.01.2019) passed resolutions approving the dissolution of CAPART and its merger with NIRD & PR. The Government of India, in its Cabinet meeting dated 2026.01.08 LALIT 16:38:55 GOSAIN +05'30' 4 09.10.2019, approved the dissolution of CAPART and its merger with NIRD & PR. Accordingly, vide Notification dated 23.04.2020 issued under Section 13 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, CAPART was dissolved and merged into NIRD & PR w.e.f. 01.05.2020. The notification provided, inter alia, that: Services of all CAPART employees would stand transferred to NIRD & PR; they would be governed by NIRD & PR service rules by reckoning their service from the date of appointment in CAPART; and all assets and liabilities of CAPART would transfer to NIRD & PR. Pension Schemes Applicable CAPART employees were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme, whereas NIRD & PR adopted the General Pension Scheme in 1985. Though extension of the General Pension Scheme to CAPART employees was under consideration since 1994, no final decision was taken prior to the merger.
4. Counsel for the applicants urged that during amalgamation, employees of CAPART who joined service on or before 31.12.2003, including the applicants, sought coverage under the Old General Pension Scheme applicable to NIRD & PR employees and that the legal opinion obtained by the respondents supported the entitlement of such employees to opt for the old pension scheme upon permanent absorption in NIRD & PR.
5. Counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the Rule 38 of the CPF Rules, which creates a right to opt for pension upon permanent transfer to a pensionable service. The said Rule is reproduced below:
RULE 38 - PENSIONABLE SERVICE (CPF RULES) 2026.01.08 LALIT 16:38:55 GOSAIN +05'30' 5 38 Procedure on transfer to pensionable service- (1) if a sub-scriber is permanently transferred to pensionable service under the President, he shall, at his option, be entitled (a) to continue to subscribe to the fund, in, which. case he shall not be entitled to-any pension or (b).
to earn pension in respect of such pensionable service. in which cases, with effect from the date of his permanent transfer- (i) he shall cease to subscribe to the fund (ii) the amount of contributions by Government with interest thereon standing to his credit in the fund shall be repaid to Government (iii) the amount of subscriptions together with interest standing to his credit in the fund shall be transferred to his credit in the General Provident Fund, to which thereafter he shall subscribe in accordance with the rules of that fund, and (iv) he shall thereupon be entitled to count towards pension services rendered prior to the date of permanent transfer to a the extent permissible under the relevant pension Rules (2) A Subscriber shall communicate his option under Sub-rule (1) by a letter to the accounts officer within three months of the date of the order transferring him permanent to pensionable service and if no communication is received in the officer of the Accounts officer within that period the subscriber shall be deemed to have exercised "his option in the manner referred to in clause (b) of that sub- rule."
6. Counsel for the applicant submitted that despite granting other service benefits such as promotions, MACP, and seniority by counting past CAPART service, the respondents denied the petitioners the option to switch to the Old Pension Scheme. This denial is alleged to be discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, especially since NIRD & PR employees similarly situated are covered under the Old Pension Scheme.
7. Counsel for the applicants submitted that the impugned communication dated 20.09.2023, issued in reply to the legal notice dated 13.07.2023, refusing the pensionary benefits, is arbitrary, illegal, and liable to be quashed.
2026.01.08 LALIT 16:38:55 GOSAIN +05'30' 6
8. Counsel for the respondents, while contesting the matter, submitted that from the inception of the erstwhile CAPART, its employees were governed by the CAPART Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Rules, 1986. Employees who joined service on or after 01.01.2004 were governed by the National Pension System (NPS). At no point of time, including prior to 31.12.2003, did CAPART adopt the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) of the Government of India. CAPART was never a pensionable establishment. At the time of superannuation, all applicants were paid their admissible retiral benefits such as Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (as amended from time to time), Leave Encashment, and both employee's and employer's CPF contributions. Thus, all retiral dues payable under the applicable rules were duly settled.
9. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that while the erstwhile CAPART had its own CPF Rules, 1986 and never adopted the Old Pension Scheme, the Respondent (NIRDPR) had adopted the pension scheme w.e.f. 01.05.1985, after obtaining approval of the Government of India, by extending an option to employees who were on rolls as on that date either to continue under the CPF Scheme or to switch over to the Old Pension Scheme. A majority of employees opted for the pension scheme, while a few continued under CPF. The Government of India restricted the applicability of the Old Pension Scheme under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, to employees joining service up to 31.12.2003, and introduced the National Pension System (NPS) w.e.f. 01.01.2004. Accordingly, employees who joined regular service in NIRDPR on or after 01.01.2004 are governed by NPS only. Erstwhile CAPART also adopted NPS w.e.f. 01.01.2004.
2026.01.08 LALIT 16:38:55 GOSAIN +05'30' 7 Therefore, employees of CAPART, whether appointed prior to or after 01.01.2004, are not entitled to benefits under the Old Pension Scheme, which the applicants are now attempting to secure by filing the present applications. The applicants became employees of the Respondents only w.e.f. 01.05.2020, i.e., the date of amalgamation.
10. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that during the process of amalgamation of CAPART with the Respondents, no representations were made by the applicants seeking extension of the Old Pension Scheme. Only after the merger w.e.f. 01.05.2020, some employees began submitting representations seeking extension of OPS, which was not available even to the employees of NIRDPR who joined on or after 01.01.2004. The contention of the applicants that a legal opinion obtained earlier is binding on the respondents is untenable. The said legal opinion was rendered in July 2019, prior to the merger, based on a request made by one Shri Ram Singh, who was then In-charge of the Court Case Cell of erstwhile CAPART. In the said opinion dated 15.07.2019, it was clearly stated at Para (3) that the Ministry of Finance had clarified that pension schemes in autonomous bodies should not be made applicable as a matter of rule. Further, Paras (7) and (8) stated that transfer of CPF funds to a pension corpus is not legally permissible, and the matter was advised to be referred to the Provident Fund Commissioner. No response was received from the Commissioner. Thus, despite efforts by some employees, no finality could be arrived at due to the impracticability and inadmissibility of extending the Old Pension Scheme to employees of a non-pensionable establishment. In any event, a legal 2026.01.08 LALIT 16:38:55 GOSAIN +05'30' 8 opinion is merely advisory in nature and does not constitute a binding decision.
11. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the reliance placed by the applicants on Rule 38 of the CPF Rules, 1962 is wholly misplaced. The said rule is part of the Government of India CPF Rules and is not applicable to the employees of erstwhile CAPART, which had framed its own CPF Rules known as "Council for Advancement of People's Action and Rural Technology Contributory Provident Fund Rules, 1986", effective from 01.09.1986. These rules are entirely distinct from the Government of India CPF Rules. Under the CAPART Rules, the CPF is administered by a Trust under the control of the Board of Trustees. Rule 38 of the Government of India CPF Rules merely prescribes a procedure for adjustment of CPF contributions when an employee is transferred to a pensionable service, which is not the case herein. Therefore, the applicants' contention that Rule 38 creates any vested right to opt for the Old Pension Scheme is legally untenable.
12. Counsel for the respondents also submitted that the respondents have allowed the Old Pension Scheme only to those employees who entered service on or before 31.12.2003 and exercised a valid option for the same. The scheme has never been extended to employees who joined the Institute on or after 01.01.2004. In this context, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 28.02.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 542 of 2023, wherein it was conclusively held that even contract employees who joined prior 2026.01.08 LALIT 16:38:55 GOSAIN +05'30' 9 to 31.12.2003 and were regularised after 01.01.2004 are not entitled to the Old Pension Scheme.
13. It is further submitted that as per the Gazette Notification dated 13.04.2020, all activities, assets, and liabilities of CAPART stood transferred to the Respondent. All service benefits applicable to the employees of the Respondent as per Service Bye-Laws as on 01.05.2020 were extended to the employees of erstwhile CAPART on par with the employees of the Answering Respondent, including promotion, pay fixation under MACP, and protection of seniority by reckoning past service rendered in CAPART. Although, applicants joined service prior to 31.12.2003, the fact remains that CAPART was a non-pensionable establishment, governed by its own CPF Rules, 1986. The applicants continued under CPF/NPS till retirement and availed all benefits thereunder. Having accepted and received CPF benefits, the applicants are not entitled in law to claim benefits under the Old Pension Scheme in view of the instructions and guidelines issued by the DoPT, Government of India, from time to time. It is reiterated that NIRD adopted the Old Pension Scheme w.e.f. 01.05.1985 with Government approval, at which point of time CAPART was not even in existence, and the applicants were not its employees. Therefore, the claim of the applicants that merely because they joined service prior to 31.12.2003 in CAPART they are entitled to OPS after merger is misconceived and unsustainable. The allegation of discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is baseless, as the applicants and the employees of the Answering Respondent do not form a homogeneous class for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The applicants, by filing 2026.01.08 LALIT 16:38:55 GOSAIN +05'30' 10 the present OAs, are attempting to secure unintended and inadmissible benefits, despite having already received all retiral benefits lawfully due to them. It is pertinent to reiterate that the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 ceased to apply to new entrants w.e.f. 31.12.2003, and NPS became mandatory thereafter. Even employees of the Answering Respondent who joined on or after 01.01.2004, including those initially engaged on contract and later regularised, are governed only by CPF/NPS. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. S.S.P. Sharma (Retd.) v. NIRDPR (Civil Appeal No. 542/2023) has conclusively settled the issue. Since the merger of CAPART with NIRDPR took place only w.e.f. 01.05.2020, long after the introduction of NPS, there is no legal basis for extending the Old Pension Scheme to the applicants. Accordingly, the question of any disparity between employees of the Answering Respondent and erstwhile CAPART employees does not arise. The reply to the legal notice dated 13.07.2023 was duly issued vide communication dated 20.09.2023, clearly setting out the factual and legal position.
14. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the respondents at length and perused the material on record.
15. The applicants, erstwhile employees of CAPART, seek extension of the Old Pension Scheme applicable to the employees of NIRD & PR, contending that upon merger of CAPART with NIRD & PR w.e.f. 01.05.2020, they became entitled to opt for pension in terms of Rule 38 of the CPF Rules and on the ground of parity with NIRD & PR employees who joined service prior to 31.12.2003.
2026.01.08 LALIT 16:38:55 GOSAIN +05'30' 11
16. The undisputed facts are that CAPART, since its inception, was governed by its own Contributory Provident Fund Rules, 1986, and never adopted the Old Pension Scheme at any point of time. The applicants continued to be governed by CPF/NPS throughout their service and admittedly received all retiral benefits admissible under the applicable rules, including employer's and employee's CPF contributions, gratuity, and leave encashment.
17. The merger of CAPART with NIRD & PR took effect only w.e.f. 01.05.2020 pursuant to the Gazette Notification dated 23.04.2020 issued under Section 13 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. By that date, the Old Pension Scheme had long ceased to apply to new entrants, and the National Pension System had already been made mandatory w.e.f. 01.01.2004.
18. The contention of the applicants that Rule 38 of the CPF Rules confers a vested right to opt for pension is misconceived. Rule 38 forms part of the Government of India CPF Rules and has no application to the employees of CAPART, who were governed by their own independent CPF Rules, administered by a Trust. The said rule, in any event, merely provides a procedural mechanism upon transfer to an already pensionable establishment and does not create an enforceable right to demand coverage under the Old Pension Scheme. The reliance placed on alleged legal opinions is also of no assistance to the applicants. A legal opinion is advisory in nature and does not have binding force. Moreover, the opinion itself records the clarification of the Ministry of Finance that pension schemes in autonomous bodies cannot be extended as a matter of course and 2026.01.08 LALIT 16:38:55 GOSAIN +05'30' 12 that transfer of CPF accumulations to a pension corpus is legally impermissible.
19. The plea of discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is devoid of merit. Employees of CAPART and employees of NIRD & PR do not constitute a homogeneous class for the purpose of pensionary benefits. NIRD & PR adopted the Old Pension Scheme in 1985 with the approval of the Government of India, whereas CAPART never did so. Merely because past service has been counted for purposes such as pay fixation, MACP, promotion, and seniority, no vested right accrues to the applicants to claim pension under a scheme that was never applicable to them.
20. The issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. S.S.P. Sharma (Retd.) v. NIRD & PR (Civil Appeal No. 542 of 2023, decided on 28.02.2023) has conclusively held that even employees who joined service prior to 31.12.2003 but were regularised after 01.01.2004 are not entitled to the Old Pension Scheme. The applicants, who became employees of NIRD & PR only upon merger w.e.f. 01.05.2020, stand on a weaker footing.
21. Having accepted CPF/NPS benefits in full and without protest at the time of retirement, the applicants cannot now seek to reopen settled issues and claim inadmissible benefits contrary to the statutory rules and binding instructions of the Government of India.
22. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no illegality, arbitrariness, or unconstitutionality in the impugned communication dated 20.09.2023 rejecting the applicants' claim for coverage under 2026.01.08 LALIT 16:38:55 GOSAIN +05'30' 13 the Old Pension Scheme. Accordingly, the Original Applications are dismissed as being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.
(Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member (J) /lg/ 2026.01.08 LALIT 16:38:55 GOSAIN +05'30'