Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Renu Joseph vs Pensions And Pensioners Welfare on 8 August, 2025
1
O.A. No. 821/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A. No. 821/2025
M.A. No. 976/2025
Reserved on: 24.07.2025
Pronounced on: 08.08.2025
HON'BLE SHRI AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER (J)
Renu Joseph, Aged about 41,
Group-C, Lady Medical Attendant,
D/o Mr. Joseph,
Flat No.10, Block-C, Sector-5,
Rohini, New Delhi - 110 085.
...Applicant
-Versus-
1. Union of India through
Secretary Pension and Pensioners' Welfare,
Government of India,
Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market,
New Delhi - 110 003.
2. Director, CGHS,
CGHS Bhawan,
Sector-13, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi - 110 066.
3. Additional Director,
Central Government Health Scheme,
North Zone, New Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi - 110 060.
4. Chief Medical Officer,
CGHS Dispensary,
Sector-7, Naharpur, Rohini,
New Delhi - 110 085.
...Respondents
Advocate for Applicant: Mr.Jagmohan Sharma.
Advocate for Respondents: Mr. Amit Sinha, SCGC
2
O.A. No. 821/2025
ORDER
AS PER AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER JUDICIAL:
MA No.976/2025The instant Misc. Application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the present OA on the premise that Administrative Officer, CGHS, CGHS informed the applicant that her case along with four employees has been forwarded to the Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare vide letter dated 15.10.2024. The applicant is living separately from her husband and her mother is suffering from Asthma and, hence, delay is of 87 days in filing present OA from cause of action i.e. issuance of impugned orders dated 14.10.2024 and dated 20.11.2023 is not intentional. 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 Union of India & Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh [2008 (8) SCC 648] and in identical case OA No.824/2025 Baby vs. Union of India & Ors., vide order dated 03.04.2025 application for condonation of delay has been allowed.
2. Shri Amit Sinha, Senior Central Government Counsel appearing for respondents would submit that as the applicant was appointed on 09.12.2004, she is covered under the New Pension Scheme [for short NPS] and there is delay of more than 20 years in challenging the impugned orders dated 14.10.2024 and 20.11.2023 whereby option for switch over from NPS to OPS was sought pursuant to OM dated 03.03.2023 latest by 31.08.2023, hence, the application for condonation of delay in filing present OA deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, the OA be also dismissed being barred by limitation.
3 O.A. No. 821/20253. Heard. The short issue for consideration is "whether the present OA seeking quashment of order dated 20.11.2023, whereby option to be covered under Old Pension Scheme under CCS (Pension) Rules has not been accepted, is barred by limitation under Section 21 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985?
4. Section 19, 20 & 21 of A.T. Act, 1985 for ready reference reads as under:-
(A) "Section- 19. Applications to tribunals.--(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of a Tribunal may make an application to the Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, "order" means an order made--
(a) by the Government or a local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or by any corporation 3[or society] owned or controlled by the Government; or
(b) by an officer, committee or other body or agency of the Government or a local or other authority or corporation 3[or society] referred to in clause (a).
(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and be accompanied by such documents or other evidence and by such fee (if any, not exceeding one hundred rupees) 4[in respect of the filing of such application and by such other fees for the service or execution of processes, as may be prescribed by the Central Government].
[(3) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the Tribunal shall, if satisfied after such inquiry as it may deem necessary, that the application is a fit case for adjudication or trial by it, admit such application; but where the Tribunal is not so satisfied, it may summarily reject the application after recording its reasons.] (4) Where an application has been admitted by a Tribunal under sub-section (3), every proceeding under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances in relation to the subject-matter of such application pending immediately before such admission shall abate and save as otherwise directed by the Tribunal, no appeal or representation in relation to such matter shall thereafter be entertained under such rules.
Section 20. Applications not to be admitted unless other remedies exhausted.--(1) A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), a person shall be deemed to have availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances,--
(a) if a final order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order under such rules, rejecting any appeal preferred or representation made by such person in connection with the grievance; or 4 O.A. No. 821/2025
(b) where no final order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order with regard to the appeal preferred or representation made by such person, if a period of six months from the date on which such appeal was preferred or representation was made has expired.
(3) For the purposes of sub-sections (1) and (2), any remedy available to an applicant by way of submission of a memorial to the President or to the Governor of a State or to any other functionary shall not be deemed to be of one of the remedies which are available unless the applicant had elected to submit such memorial.
Section 21. Limitation.--(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,--
(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;
(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where--
(a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and
(b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub- section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period."
(B) Section 5 of Limitation Act 1963 envisages that:-
"5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.--Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.
[Emphasis supplied]
5. A reading of the Section 21 of A.T. Act, 1985 would indicate that sub-section (1) of Section 21 provides for limitation for redressal of the grievances in clauses (a) and (b) 5 O.A. No. 821/2025 and specifies the period of one year. Sub-Section (2) amplifies the limitation of one year in respect of grievances covered under clauses (a) and (b) and an outer limit of six months in respect of grievances covered by sub-section (2) clause (b) of Section 20 is provided. Sub-Section (3) postulates that notwithstanding anything contained sub-section (1) or sub- Section (2), if the applicants satisfy the Tribunal that they had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period enumerated in sub-section (1) and (2) from the date of application, the Tribunal has been given power to condone the delay on satisfaction of itself that the applicant has sufficiently explained the delay in filing the application for rederssal of their grievances. The Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 has given power, right for making applications within one year of the grievances covered under clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 20, there is no need for the applicant to give any explanation to the delay having occurred during that period. Applicant entitled, as a matter of right to invoke the jurisdiction of the court for redressal of their grievances. If the application to be filed beyond that period, then the need to satisfactory explanation for the delay caused till date of filing of the application must be given and then the question of satisfaction of the Tribunal in that behalf would arise. Sub-Section (3) starts with a non-obstante clause which rubs out the effect of sub- section (2) of Section 21 and the need thereby arises to give satisfactory explanation for the delay which occasioned after the expiry of the period prescribed in Sub-Section (1) & (2) of Section 21 thereof.
6. Present OA has been filed under Section 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985 and intention of legislature is plain language with opening words in sub-section (1) of Section 19 that subject to the other provisions of this Act, a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of a Tribunal may make an application. So also sub-section (3) of 6 O.A. No. 821/2025 Section 19 provides that on receipt of such OA subject to other provisions of this AT Act, 1985 and coupled with the fact, the Tribunal shall if satisfied after such inquiry as it may deem necessary, that the such application is a fit case for adjudication or trial by it, admit such application, but where the Tribunal is not so satisfied, it may summarily reject the application after recording its reasons.
7. Thus the intention of the legislature is clear and object of the A.T. Act, 1985 is clear as evident from the scheme extracted herein above.
8. The undisputed facts of the case in hand that applicant along with her batchmates namely Smt. Manju Bala, Smt. Rangita, Smt. Urmila Devi, Smt. Rajesh Wati, Smt. Mukesh Devi, Smt. Shareen Lata and Smt. Kanti Devi, were appointed to the post of Ayah under CGHS Delhi on 09.02.2004 pursuant to advertisement dated 02.09.2003 (Annexure A-2) and as evident from order of appointment dated 09.12.2004 (Annexure A-3) governed by NPS.
9. Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, Government of India issued OM dated 03.03.2023 for coverage under CCS (Pension) Rules in place of NPS of those Central Govt. employees, who were recruited against the posts/vacancies advertised/notified for recruitment on or before 22.12.2003 and one time option to be covered under CCS (Pension) Rules latest by 31.08.2023. The original cause of action in present case arose on 20.11.2023, when impugned order dated 20.11.2023 as well as dated 14.10.2024 issued to convey that option for OPS has to be exercised latest by 31.08.2023.
10. Cause of action in present case relates to pension and same is continuing wrong and there is exception to rule of limitation and relief can be granted from the date of continuing 7 O.A. No. 821/2025 wrong commences [Union of India & Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh [2008 (8) SCC 648].
11. Cause of action arose on 20.11.2023. So also on 15.10.2024 whereby Office Order dated 15.10.2024 (Annexure A-12) sent by Administrative Officer, CGHS for change over from NPS to OPS was returned and informed vide impugned order dated 20.11.2023 and the OA has been filed on 14.02.2025 within one and half year of date of cause of action i.e. 20.11.2023 in accordance with Clause (a) and (b) of sub- section (2) of Section 20 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with sub-section (1) of Section 21 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
12. As evident, the Cause of action in present case arising on issuance of impugned orders dated 20.11.2023 and 14.10.2024 and present OA has been filed on 14.02.2025, well within the time prescribed under Scheme of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as extracted hereinabove and cause of action is continuing wrong related to pension and sufficient cause also shown on affidavit - delay, if any, is not intentional as vide letter dated 15.10.2024 (Annexure A-12) respondent no.2 sent to respondent no.3 to induct applicant to OPS.
13. In the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648, Their Lordships held that an exception to the principle of limitation period in cases of continuing wrong which can be entertained despite delay and particularly where there is no involvement of interest of the third party.
14. In the case of Sheo Raj Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2023) 10 SCC 531, Their Lordships held that "law of limitation was found on public policy and that some lapse on the part of a litigant by itself would not be sufficient to deny condonation of delay as the same could cause miscarriage of 8 O.A. No. 821/2025 justice. The expression "sufficient cause" is elastic enough for Courts to do substantial justice. Further, when substantial justice and technical considerations are against one another, the former would prevail. It is upon the Courts to consider the sufficiency of cause shown for the delay and the length of delay is not always decisive while exercising discretion in such matters if the delay is properly explained. Further, the merits of a claim were also to be considered when deciding such applications for condonation of delay".
15. Having considered the submissions, law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court cited herein above, scheme of the A.T. Act, 1985, as extracted hereinabove, So also in identical OA No.824/2025, Baby Vs. Union of India, vide order dated 03.04.2025, MA No.1369/2025 - application for condonation of delay stands allowed.
16. For all the reasons stated hereinabove, MA No.976/2025- Application for condonation of delay in filing the present OA accordingly stands allowed and disposed of and delay in filing the OA stands condoned in the interest of justice.
OA No.821/2025Applicant is Lady Medical Attendant, CGHS, Delhi by means of this Application has invoked jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking following relief(s) [as extracted from the OA] reads as -
"(i) Declare the orders dated 20.11.2023 and explanation dated 14.10.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and quash and set aside the order dated 20.11.2023 and clarification dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Respondents wherein the Respondents rejected the application/exercise of option of the Applicant for coverage under Old Pension Scheme.
(ii) Direct the Respondents to grant coverage under CCS (Rules), 1972 to the Applicant either by accepting her application dated 21.09.2024 or by giving another chance to the Applicant to exercise Option.9 O.A. No. 821/2025
(ii) Award costs of this application and proceedings against the Respondents in favour of the applicant, and
(iv) Pass any further order(s), directions as may be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice."
FACTS IN BRIEF
2. The Briefly stated facts, as adumbrated by the applicant that respondent no.3 issued advertisement dated 2nd September, 2003 for the post of Ayah and along with 14 batchmates appointed vide order dated 09.12.2004, governed by NPS. Respondent no.1 issued O.M. dated 03.03.2023 for coverage under CCS (Pension) Rules, in place of NPS of those Central Govt. employees who were recruited against posts advertised for recruitment on or before 22.12.2003 and decided in all cases where Central Govt. 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 01.01.2004 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 31.08.2023.
3. It is also the case of the applicant, as set out in the OA, that applicant submitted letter dated 21.09.2023 for exercise of option to switch over from NPS to OPS as per O.M. dated 03.03.2023 as cut-off date for taking decision on the options received till 30.11.2023 as per O.M. dated 07.11.2023 and the respondent no.3 accepted the option for OPS and forwarded vide letter dated 15.10.2024 (Annexure A12) including name of applicant and three other batchmates. The impugned order dated 20.11.2013 was issued, informing the applicant that a One-time Option to be covered under statutory Old Pension Scheme (in short OPS) and same was to be exercised latest by 31.08.2023. Respondent no.2 issued Office Order dated 11.12.2023 (Annexure A-8) and issued coverage of OPS as per 10 O.A. No. 821/2025 O.M. dated 03.03.2023 in case of Smt. Manju Bala, batchmate, allowed to opt for OPS even option for OPS exercised belatedly on 14.09.2023 after cut-off date 31.08.2023, whereas in case of applicant refused to switch over to OPS vide impugned order, whereas applicant came to know of OM dated 03.03.2023 belatedly as her mother was suffering from asthma and no wide publicity given so also applicant was also not informed about O.M. dated 03.03.2023.
4. Per contra, the respondents have filed the counter reply affidavit stating that the applicant, MTS, submitted option form for OPS on 21.09.2023, whereas option was to be exercised latest by 31.08.2023 as per O.M. dated 03.03.2023 and no date was extended as per O.M. dated 07.11.2023 to submit option for OPS.
5. 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 14.09.2023 after 31.08.2023, the cut-off date, but not to discriminate Ms. Manju Bala, option was accepted even after cut-off date. Respondents issued Office Order dated 11.12.2023 (Annexure A-8) allowed batchmate Ms. Manju Bala coverage under OPS after cut-off date prescribed in O.M. dated 03.03.2023 to not to discriminate Ms. Manju Bala. 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.
6. 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 14.09.2023 belated exercise of option for OPS after cut-off date 31.08.2023 prescribed by O.M. dated 03.03.2023. 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 O.M. 11 O.A. No. 821/2025 dated 03.03.2023 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 03.03.2023.
SUBMISSIONS
7. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contended and can be summarized as under -
(i) Applicant and her batchmate namely Ms. Manju Bala was appointed pursuant to advertisement dated 02.09.2003, prior to date of notification for NPS i.e. 22.12.2003 and in accordance with O.M. dated 03.03.2023 and applicant is also legally entitled to be allowed to exercise option from NPS to OPS, being beneficial measure.
(ii) Respondents have accepted option dated 14.09.2023 for OPS of batchmate Ms. Manju Bala after cut-off date i.e. 31.08.2023, without any special reason and applicant also have legal and vested right for equal treatment and impugned orders are violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India.
(iii) Respondents have neither communicated OM dated 03.03.2023 nor given wide publicity to O.M. dated 03.03.2023 and applicant received information belatedly and applicant immediately submitted option for OPS as soon as came to know about OM dated 03.03.2023 immediately submitted option and forwarded by respondent vide Annexure A-12 and no reply to said averments given by the respondents.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents vociferously canvassed and can be summarized as -
(i) O.M. dated 03.03.2023 prescribed latest date by 31.08.2023 to exercise one time option to be covered under OPS and undisputedly the option was furnished by the applicant on 21.09.2023 and forwarded by respondent no.4 to 12 O.A. No. 821/2025 respondent no.2 belatedly on 15.10.2024 and there is no legal infirmity in the impugned orders.
(ii) Applicant exercised option for OPS on 21.09.2023 and in case of Ms. Manju Bala exercised her option on 14.09.2023 beyond 31.08.2023 but in case of Ms. Manju Bala, there is consideration for OPS and no equality can be claimed as vested legal right.
(iii) O.M. dated 07.11.2023 was issued extending date till 30.11.2023 to take decision on options received and cut-off date 31.08.2023 for furnishing option was not extended.
FINDING AND ANALYSIS
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
THE ISSUE
10. The issue involved in this case is as "Whether the applicant is entitled to exercise option to be covered to GPF-cum- Old Pension Scheme under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (now 2021)?"
11. To consider and answer the said issue, it is necessary to notice the facts not in dispute that applicant along with her batchmates, namely, Smt. Manju Bala, Premlata, Sheela, Indra, Ranjita, Rajeshwati, Mukesh Devi, Shareen Lata submitted applications for the post of Ayah under CGHS Delhi pursuant to advertisement dated 02.09.2003 (Annexure A-2) and appointed vide order dated 09.12.2004 (Annexure A-3), governed by the Contributory Fund-NPS Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.2004. Respondents have issued OM dated 03.03.2023 for coverage under statutory Old Pension Scheme for employees recruited pursuant to advertisement on or before 22.12.2003 and applicant is prima facie eligible for 13 O.A. No. 821/2025 consideration but option was submitted after cut-off date i.e. 31.08.2023. Ms. Manju Bala, batchmate, submitted option form on 14.09.2023 after cut-off date 31.08.2023 even than vide order dated 11.12.2023 inducted to GPF-cum-Old Pension Scheme pursuant to OM dated 03.03.2023, whereas case of applicant rejected for OPS on submission of option form on 21.09.2023 after curt-off date 31.08.2023 as prescribed in OM dated 03.03.2023.
12. Admittedly, the advertisement dated 02.09.2003 for the post of Ayah was issued and on the date of issue of said advertisement applicant had right to receive pension upon superannuation but due to delay in issuance of offer of appointment vide offer of appointment dated 09.12.2004, the basic terms and conditions of service after dated 02.09.2003 of issuance of advertisement were altered to the prejudice of the incumbents to 16 posts of Ayah after commencement of the selection process. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the present case and applicant was entitled for coverage under Old Pension Scheme under CCS (P) Rules, 1972 (Now 2021) at the time when posts were advertised i.e. 02.09.2003 and the circumstances of applicant's joining service after commencement of NPS w.e.f. 22.12.2003 for reasons not attributable to the applicant.
13. Applicant has made specific averments in th OA that in sub-para (k) of para 4, facts of the case that delay in exercise of option pursuant to OM dated 03.03.2023 latest by 31.08.2023, the option may be exercised by the concerned government servant and reason for said delay was informed that the applicant came to know about exercise of option belatedly from the colleagues in the office. So also applicant stated in the sub-para (c) of main para 6 - grounds in the OA that respondents have failed to give wide publicity to the O.M. dated 03.03.2023 as mandated in the said OM itself. The 14 O.A. No. 821/2025 respondents have filed counter-reply affidavit dated 07.07.2025 and in reply to para 4(k) in OA has not denied specifically that any information relating to OM dated 03.03.2023 to exercise option for OPS latest by 31.08.2023 was also given to the applicant. So also OM dated 03.03.2023 in para 9 stipulated that all ministries/departments are requested to give wide publicity to these orders without fail and applicant fulfilled the conditions mentioned in the OM dated 03.03.2023 and till 30.11.2023 vide OM dated 07.11.2023 - cut-off date for taking administrative decision was extended on options received. Respondents have not stated anything on specific averments in sub-para (c) of main para-6 - grounds - because respondents failed to give wide publicity to the OM dated 03.03.2023 as mandated in the said OM dated 03.03.2023 itself. So also there is no denial of averments in the counter affidavit, regarding para 9 of OM dated 03.03.2023 regarding giving wide publicity to these orders without fail. The factum of not giving wide publicity of OM dated 03.03.2023 regarding OM dated 03.03.2023 and cut-off date is 31.08.2023 for OPS is well established. So also on bare perusal of counter-reply to para no.4 (k) and 6(c) in OA in the counter-reply affidavit, there is neither denial nor refusal and there is no specific answer on the specific averments not giving any publicity to OM dated 03.03.2023 as mandated in para 9 of the said OM. So also there is no specific denial of the specific fact that no publicity was given to OM dated 03.03.2023 as mandated by para 9 of said OM. As per Rules 3 & 4 of Order VIII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the fact as stated in para 4(k) and 6(B) of OA regarding not giving wide publicity and not informing applicant by necessary implications stated to be admitted. This Tribunal is of the firm opinion that respondents failed to comply para 9 of OM dated 03.03.2023 to give wide publicity to exercise option latest by 31.08.2023 and for fault of respondents, the applicant cannot 15 O.A. No. 821/2025 be deprived of benefits of coverage under CSS (P) Rules, 1972 (Now 2021) based on paras 5, 6, impugned order dated 14.10.2024 (Annexure A-1), para 4 of OM dated 07.11.2023 and vide impugned order dated 20.11.2023. So also respondent no.2 forwarded option of applicant and 4 other employees on 15.10.2024 vide letter dated 15.10.2024 (Annexure A-12) for Old Pension Scheme. Admittedly, applicant submitted option for OPS on 21.09.2023 as stated in Annexure A-6 and same was forwarded to the competent authority on 15.10.2024, knowing well that applicant was not at fault to submit latest by 31.08.2023. Respondents cannot blame applicant for fault of respondents not giving any publicity or information to the applicant as mandated by OM dated 03.03.2023 and applicant is legally entitled for switch- over from NPS to GPF-cum-OPS as per OM dated 03.03.2023 with all consequential benefits.
14. Undisputed fact and another aspect of the matter in this case in hand that the batch-mate of the applicant, namely, Smt. Maju Bala, LMA, exercised the option after cut-off date i.e. on 31.08.2023 as per OM dated 03.03.2023. Admittedly, Ms. Manju Bala, LMA - batchmate of the applicant, exercised the option on 14.09.2023 for Old Pension Scheme in accordance with OM dated 03.03.2023, vide Office Order dated 11.12.2023 placed under Old Pension Scheme as per terms and conditions mentioned in OM dated 03.03.2023. Relevant extract of Office Order dated 11.12.2023 (Annexure A-8) for ready reference is reproduced as under -
"File No.14-04/2023/CGHS/Estt(NG)/3568-3606 Govt. of India O/o of the Additional Director C.G.H.S. (HQ) Estt.(NG) Sector-13, Rama Krishna Puram, New Delhi - 110 066.
Fax: 011-26712280 Tel:011-26712269 Dt. 11/12/2023 16 O.A. No. 821/2025 OFFICE - ORDER Consequent upon their exercising the option before 31st August 2023 (except Smt. Manju Bala, LMA - S.No. 12) for coverage under Central Civil Pension Rules, 1972 (now 2021, in place of National Pension Scheme in pursuant of Deptt. of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare's Office Memorandum No.57/05/2021- P&PW(B) dt.03/03/2023 and subsequently find them eligible for coverage under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (now 2021) in accordance with aforesaid OM dt. 03.03.2023, the following officials working under CGHS (Delhi) are placed under Old Pension Scheme as per the terms and conditions mentioned in aforesaid OM dt. 03.03.2023.
S. Name of Place of Whether Date of Date of Date on
No Staff Posting appointed Advertisement joining of which the
(CGHS) against of recruitment service option for
regular old pension
post scheme was
exercised.
12. Smt. Manju SZ Regular 20- 07/10/2004 14/09/2023
Bala, LMA 26/09/2003
In terms of Para-7 of the said Memo, the NPS Account in r/o the following officials shall consequently be closed w.e.f. 31.12.2023."
[Emphasis supplied]
15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India & Ors. vs. D.R. Sastri, AIR OnLine 1966 SC 1200. Their Lordships was seisin with the appeal by special leave against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) dated 23.09.1994 in OA No.1711/1993, whereby the appellant was directed to allow the respondent the benefit of option for the pension Scheme. The case of the respondent-employee was that he was entitled to opt for liberalized pension scheme but the aforesaid letter of the Railway Board was not brought to his notice and after cut-off date made representation that he was entitled to opt for the scheme and Railway Board letter dated 22.07.1974 to opt for liberalized pension scheme was not brought to his notice and after cut-off date he be allowed to exercise the option and Railway Board rejected the same vide communication dated 13.07.1993. The respondent approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondent being in service of Railways was entitled to exercise the option coming over to the pension scheme in terms of Railway Board letter dated 23.07.1994. The Tribunal took note 17 O.A. No. 821/2025 of the fact that another railway employee was allowed to exercise the option long after the date of exercising of option has expired and therefore, there should be no ground to discriminate the respondent. Challenging the aforesaid direction of the Tribunal, the Union of India has come in appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court, Their Lordships held as under:-
"In the aforesaid premises and in the absence of any explanation from the appellant to indicate any special feature for granting similar relief as late as in the year 1994 to Shri K.V. Wasthuri, we see no justification for our interference with the impugned direction of the Tribunal. The respondent had served for about 22 years and he should not be deprived of the pensionary benefit when the government itself had come forward with the liberalized pension scheme and gave option to the persons already retired to come over to the pension scheme. But his pension is to be calculated as on July 31, 1972 in accordance with the Railway Board's letter dated 23rd July, 1974 and on compliance with all the necessary formalities by the respondents in accordance with the said circular."
16. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Rajindra Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. in WP(C) 2810/2016, MANU/DE/1021/2017: 2017: DHC:1767-DB: 2017 (2) SLJ 206 (Delhi). Their Lordships were dealing with issue to extend the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme to the petitioners appointed on 17.03.2005 pursuant to advertisement dated 9-15 November, 2002 and denied benefits of the OPS under the CCS(P) Rules, 1972. Their Lordships held as under:-
"13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, where advertisements for recruitment to the posts of Sub Inspectors in CAPFs were issued in November, 2002, written examinations were held on 12.01.2003, Physical Efficiency Test had been held in or before April, 2003, and the petitioners appeared before the Medical Board between April, 2003, to June, 2003, and declared fit upon medical re-examination by Review Medical Board in December, 2003, it would be grossly unjust and arbitrary to deny the petitioners the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme, applicable at the time when the posts were advertised, only because of the fortuitous circumstance of their joining service after the enforcement of the New Pension Scheme, for reasons not attributable to them.
xxx xxx xxx
18. In our view, basic terms and conditions of service, such as the right to receive pension upon superannuation, as applicable at the time of notification of the posts, cannot 18 O.A. No. 821/2025 later be altered to the prejudice of the incumbents to the post, after commencement of the selection process.
xxx xxx xxx
20. In WP(C) No.3834/2013 (Parmanand Yadav and Others Vs. Union of India and others) the Division Bench held:-
"8. In the case of BSF, of which petitioners are enrolled members of the Force, letters offering appointment were delayed by three months, a fact admitted by the respondents, and as to be found in the DG BSF admitting said fact in the counter affidavit filed.
9. Thus, for parity of reasons, same relief as was granted to Naveen Kumar Jha and Avinash Singh must flow to the writ petitioners, and thus we adopt the reasoning in the two decisions, and hence we have reproduced the same hereinabove.
10. The petition is allowed issuing a mandamus to the respondents to treat the petitioners as a member of the pension scheme which was in vogue till December 31, 2003 and not to treat them as members of the new pension contributory fund scheme."
xxx xxx xxx
23. The issue of whether Sub Inspectors similarly circumstanced, as the petitioners, who had been cleared in medical examinations in 2003, but issued with appointment letters and joined the BSF in 2004 or 2005, could be denied pensionary benefits under the old pension scheme, which ended on 21.12.2003, was decided by a Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) No.5830/2015 (Shoorvir Singh Negi Vs. Union of India and others) heard with five other writ petitions.
24. By a judgment and order dated 17.09.2015, the Division Bench held:-
"As far as the claim for pensionary benefits based upon the old pension scheme which ended on 31.12.2003 is concerned, we are of the opinion that a somewhat different result would have to follow. Undoubtedly, all the petitioners were declared medically fit by 2003. However, they would not be issued with appointment letters and joined subsequently in 2004 or 2005. It is here that the observations in Avinash Singh (supra) quoted with approval in Naveen Kumar Jha (supra) become relevant. Although the petitioners were declared fit earlier - at least much before the cessation of the old pension rules, there was an administrative delay in the issuance of the appointment letter asking them to join training. In these circumstances, in the interests of justice, we hold that they should be entitled to the benefits of the old pension scheme."
xxx xxx xxx
31. In our considered opinion, there can also be no discrimination between batchmates, only because some were, at the time of appointment, informed that the New Pension Scheme would apply, while others were not.19 O.A. No. 821/2025
xxx xxx xxx
38. In this case, the petitioners have not retired from service. After persons similarly circumstanced, if not identically circumstanced, as the petitioners were, given the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme, may be, pursuant to orders of this Court, the petitioners approached this Court for relief. Rejection of the writ petition only on the ground of delay, would perpetrate discrimination between persons similarly circumstanced.
39. It is well settled that relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary. When there is acquiescence and laches and delay in approaching this Court, discretionary relief might be declined. However, delay is no bar to entertaining a writ petition. If entertaining a delayed writ petition entails the consequence of unsettling things already settled, relief may be declined. However, flagrant discrimination cannot be allowed to continue, only because of delay. Illegality must be redressed. In this case grant of relief would not result in unsettling things already settled. We are not inclined to reject the writ petition on the ground of delay.
40. The writ petition is allowed. The respondent shall treat the petitioners as members of the Old Pension Scheme under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972."
[Emphasis supplied]
17. As evident from OM dated 03.03.2023, particularly para 4 of the OM dated 03.03.2023, applicant having been appointed pursuant to advertisement dated 2nd September, 2003 for the post of Ayah and entitled to give option for coverage under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (now 2021). Respondents have not given any publicity to these orders in OM dated 03.03.2023 and accepted option exercised on 14.09.2023 for Old Pension Scheme, in case of batchmate of the applicant i.e. Smt. Manju Bala, LMA, as evident from the Office Order dated 11.12.2023 already extracted herein above. Applicant has specifically stated in sub-para B of para 5, grounds that applicant has been discriminated vis-à-vis Smt. Manju Bala who exercised option on 14.09.2023, after cut-off date i.e. 31.08.2023 and case of the applicant rejected as the applicant submitted offer on 21.09.2023 for Old Pension Scheme. The case of applicant is for induction from NPS to OPS under CCS (P) Rules is beneficial legislation. Respondents 20 O.A. No. 821/2025 have not denied the factum of grant of switch-over from NPS to GPF-cum-OPS to Ms. Manju Bala as evident from Office Order dated 11.12.2023, extracted hereinabove. So also no special reasons assigned to accept option beyond 31.08.2023 in case of Ms. Manju Bala, in the counter-reply to specific averments of discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in case of pension being beneficial legislation. Once similar benefit to exercise option for Old Pension Scheme under CCS (P) Rules, 1972 (now 2021) extended to Ms. Manju Bala, batchmate of the applicant after submitting option on 14.09.2023 beyond cut-off date i.e. 31.08.2023 and respondents failed to give any material or any special and distinguishing feature for granting said benefits as applicant also exercised option in September, 2023 and refusing in case of applicant vide impugned order dated 20.11.2023 is highly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and impugned order dated 20.11.2023 (Annexure A-1) is liable to be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits to the applicants in accordance with terms and conditions as stated in para 8 of OM dated 03.03.2023. So also communication dated 14.10.2024 shall not be impediment in the case of applicant to allow to switch-over to OPS. Needless to say deadline in OM dated 03.03.2023 to exercise option shall not apply in case of present applicant in view of above peculiar facts and circumstances. So also held in OA No.3266/2022 titled Surendra Singh vide Order dated 16.04.2025 by this Tribunal.
18. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. D.R. Sastri (supra) upheld the similar view taken by Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal and directed to allow the benefits of option for the liberalized pension scheme. So also Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Rajindra Singh & Ors. (supra) held that petitioners have not retired from service and after persons similarly circumstanced were given the benefit of 21 O.A. No. 821/2025 Old Pension Scheme and denial would perpetuate discrimination between persons similarly circumstanced.
CONCLUSION
19. For reasons stated hereinabove, the issue is decided in favour of the applicant and against the respondents and the impugned order dated 20.11.2023 is quashed and set-aside.
20. The Original Application is accordingly allowed issuing direction to the respondents to treat the applicant as member of the statutory Pension Scheme under Central Civil Services (Pension), 1972 (now 2021) to come over to GPF-cum-Statutory Pension Scheme and complete said exercise within a period of ninety days from the date of the receipt/production of certified copy of the order passed today.
21. However, subject to circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
22. As a sequel thereof, pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed off.
(Ajay Pratap Singh) Member (J) /na/