Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
D Narasimha vs South Central Railway on 15 October, 2025
1
OA.No.395/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.021/00395/2025
ORDER RESERVED ON 08.09.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 15.10.2025
HON'BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
D.Narasimha, S/o D.Venkata Ram, aged 42 years
Assistant Personnel Officer (Group B)
O/o The Chief Personnel Officer
South Central Railway
Secunderabad - 500 003.
R/o. House No.1-37-158/295
Road No.6, Sri Sai Ram Nagar Colony
Boduppal, Hydeabad - 500 092. .....Applicant
(By Advocate Sri K.R.K.V.Prasad)
Vs.
1. Union of India Rep. by
The Chief Executive Officer-cum-Chairman
Railway Board
Ministry of Railways
Rail Bhavan, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The General Manager
South Central Railway
Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad-500003.
3. The Principal Chief Personnel Officer
South Central Railway
Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad-500003.
4. The Principal Financial Adviser
South Central Railway
Secunderabad - 500003.
5. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer
South Central Railway
Secunderabad Division
Secunderbad-500003.
6. The Senior Divisional Finance Manager
South Central Railway
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING,
PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=
NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD,
Phone=
PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=
PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
SANDHYA
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.10.24 12:59:57+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2
OA.No.395/2025
Secunderabad Division
Secunderabad - 500003.
7. The Railway Recruitment Board represented by
The Secretary
Railway Recruitment Board
Secunderabad - 500017. ....Respondents
(By Advocate Sri B.Siva Sankar, Sr.PC for CG)
*****
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING,
PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=
NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD,
Phone=
PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=
PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
SANDHYA
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.10.24 12:59:57+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
3
OA.No.395/2025
ORDER
PER: HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"....to call for the records pertaining to the letter and Memorandum No.SCR/P-SC/777/P-09/Gaz/Bills/2024 dated 09.05.2024 and Railway Board's letter No.E(G)2023/PN1/20 dated 02.11.2023 and set aside and quash the same by declaring that the action of the respondent Railways in withdrawing the earlier Memorandum dated 28.04.2023 and declining the eligibility of the applicant for switchover to Old Pension Scheme (OPS) from National Pension System (NPS) is illegal, duly declaring that the DoP&PW's OM dated 03.03.2023 has no application to the case of the applicant; and direct the respondent-railways to treat that the applicant's appointment in Railways is deemed to be prior to 22.12.2003 against the backlog vacancy of ST and accordingly extend the benefit of coverage under Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 and grant all consequential benefits to the applicant and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
2. The facts of the case, in brief, as per the submissions of the applicant, are as follows:
i. The applicant belongs to the Scheduled Tribes category. He was initially appointed as Jr.Clerk-cum-Typist on 20.07.2006 in the Secunderabad Division of the South Central Railway and is at present working as Assistant Personnel Officer at the Zonal Headquarters, South Central Railway. The initial appointment of the applicant was made under special recruitment drive for SC/STs, processed by the Railway Recruitment Board, Secunderabad, in pursuance to Employment Notification No.01/2004, dated 11.12.2004, which was Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.24 12:59:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 OA.No.395/2025 issued to fill up the backlog vacancies pertaining to the period prior to 11.12.2004. The said backlog vacancies pertain to the unfilled vacancies of the earlier Notification, dt.24.07.1999. During the interregnum, between the said two Notifications, dt.24.07.1999 and 11.12.2004, the New Pension System (NPS) was introduced, vide DoP&PW Notification, dt.22.12.2003, w.e.f. 01.01.2004. As the applicant's initial appointment was against the backlog vacancies which had occurred prior to the issuance of the notification, dt.11.12.2004, the applicant opted for switch-over for coverage under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. The option of the applicant was approved by the Appointing Authority, as per Memorandum, dt.28.04.2023, but the 5th Respondent, later, withdrew the same. The stand of the Respondent Railways that the Old Pension System will be extended only in the case of appointment made against a post or vacancy which was advertised / notified prior to the date of Notification of NPS, i.e., 22.12.2003, is not correct as the circumstances of the belated Notification, in respect of the backlog vacancies, has not been discussed in the related OM of the DoP&PW.
ii. According to the applicant, since the ST employees have a right of appointment against backlog vacancies under Article 16(4B) of the Constitution, despite the delay in recruiting ST employees against the backlog vacancies, their rights shall not be affected. Hence, by raising the ground that appointment against backlog vacancy is deemed to be prior to 22.12.2003, the OA is filed for a direction to cover the applicant under the Old Pension System.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.24 12:59:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 OA.No.395/2025 iii. The option of the applicant was approved by the Appointing Authority, as per Memorandum, dt.28.04.2023, of the 5th Respondent.
On a query raised by the Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Secunderabad, the 5th Respondent addressed a letter to the 3rd Respondent/Prl.Chief Personnel Officer, seeking a clarification whether the employees appointed on or after 01.01.2004 for the vacancies existing prior to 01.01.2004 are eligible to exercise their option for coverage under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, in place of NPS, even if the Notification was issued in 2004 for the backlog vacancies which had been vacant since 1999. While seeking a clarification, it was mentioned that (a) the applicant was recruited against backlog vacancies; (b) the Railway Recruitment Board, Secunderabad, had confirmed that the post of Junior Clerk-
Cum-Typist, South Central Railway, prior to Employment Notification No.01/2004, had been filled up vide RRB/SC's Employment Notification No.02/1999, which establishes that the vacancies notified through the RRB/SC's Notification No.01/2004 were of the period prior to 01.01.2004. The 3rd Respondent, in turn, addressed a letter, dt.30.06.2023, to the 1st Respondent's office.
iv. The 1st Respondent's office advised the Zonal Railway to first examine the matter in consultation with their Associate Finance. On the advice of the Associate Finance, the 3rd Respondent once again referred the matter to the 1st Respondent's office (Board) for clarification.Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.24 12:59:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 OA.No.395/2025 v. The 1st Respondent's office, vide letter, dt.02.11.2023, clarified that, in terms of the DoP&PW's OM, dt.03.03.2023, circulated, vide letter, dt.10.03.2023, switching over to OPS from NPS is allowed only in case of appointment against a post or vacancy which was advertised/notified prior to the date of Notification of NPS, i.e., 22.12.2003, irrespective of the time when the vacancies had occurred or decategorization had occurred in case of CG appointment. Vide the impugned letter, dt.09.05.024, the aforesaid advice was, in turn, communicated to the 5th Respondent who cancelled the Memorandum, dt.28.04.2023, stating that the applicant is not eligible for coverage under the OPS.
vi. It is further argued by the applicant that the Railway Recruitment Board, in their reply to the RTI query raised by one Sri K.Basava Raja, had stated that, prior to Notification No.1/2004, dt.11.12.2004, the post of Jr.Clerk-cum-Typist was filled vide Notification No.02/1999, dt.24.07.1999. This clearly establishes that the applicant was appointed against a vacancy which was left unfilled in the Notification No.02/1999. But for the belated Notification issued in 2004, the applicant, who belongs to the reserved category, would have been considered for appointment much earlier to the introduction of the New Pension System. The 1st Respondent's office, without referring the case of the applicant to the DoP&PW, issued a clarification, vide letter, dt.02.11.2023, referring to the DoP&PW's, OM, dt.03.03.2023, which had been circulated vide RBE No.41 of 2023, dated 10.03.2023, though the said OM, dt.03.03.2023, did not Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.24 12:59:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 OA.No.395/2025 cover the circumstance of backlog vacancies of reserved employees.
Thus, it is not applicable to the case of the applicant.
3. The grounds advanced by the applicant include the following:
i. ST employees have a right of appointment against backlog vacancies under Article 16(4B) of the Constitution. Hence, even if the recruitment is delayed in the matter of filling up of such backlog vacancies, the fundamental right of consideration for appointment of SC/ST persons have to be reckoned from the date of occurrence of the said vacancy. The DoP&PW's OM, dt.03.03.2023, circulated by the Railways, vide letter, dt.10.03.2023, permitting for switching over to the Old Pension System from the New Pension System, allowing it, only in case of appointment against a post or vacancy which was advertised/notified prior to the date of notification of NPS, i.e., 22.12.2003, did not cover the circumstances of belated Notification in respect of backlog vacancies. Hence, appointment made against backlog vacancy shall be treated as appointment prior to Notification and the date of Notification in the said context of backlog vacancies is deemed to be prior to 22.12.2003.
ii. In the case of direct recruits, the year of recruitment shall be considered as the year of vacancy, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the N.R.Parmar case, which principle was considered in the later judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hariharan while distinguishing the judgment rendered in the Meghachandra case. As such, in the instant case, the vacancy left Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.24 12:59:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 OA.No.395/2025 over from the 1999 Notification ought to have been filled up during the period from 2000 to 2003, as per the extant instructions, that the backlog vacancies of ST shall be filled up in the same recruitment year, or, at the earliest, which could have been before the introduction of the New Pension Scheme.
4. On notice, Respondents have appeared through their counsel and filed their reply statement, wherein they submit that -
i. The fact that the applicant was appointed as Jr.Clerk-cum-Typist on 20.07.2006 against RRB/SC's Notification No.01/2004, dt,11.12.2004, which included the special recruitment drive for SCs/STs, is not disputed. He was, subsequently, promoted as Sr.Clerk and then as Office Superintendent. While working in the PCPO/O/SC, as Office Superintendent, he was selected to Gr.'B' post of Assistant Personnel Officer against the 70% promotional quota, on 16.02.2017, and posted in the Hyderabad Division, as APO. The Applicant worked in the Secunderabad Division from 04.07.2018 to 28.04.2023 and was transferred to the Headquarters on 29.04.2023.
ii. While working as APO in the SC Division, he had submitted a representation based on Railway Board's instructions issued vide RBE No.41/2023, dt.10.03.2023, for switching over to the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, in place of the National Pension System, stating that he had been appointed as Jr.Clerk-cum-Typist against RRB/SC's notification No.01/2004, dt.11.12.2004, under the special recruitment drive (backlog vacancies) for SC/STs which fell Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.24 12:59:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 OA.No.395/2025 vacant prior to 01.01.2004. Memorandum, dt.28.04.2023, was issued, conveying the approval of the competent authority, in this regard.
iii. Thereafter, when the case was sent to the Associate Finance for certification of the drawn particulars for calculation of NPS Tier-1 amount and to call for the corpus from the NSDL, in accordance with Para 9 of DOP&PW's OM, dt.17.02.2020, (RBE No.28/2020), along with Memorandum, dt.28.04.2023, the Sr.Divisional Finance Manager, Secunderabad, returned the proposal stating that the employee may not be covered under the provision to switch over from NPS to OPS since he was appointed during 2006, whereas, as per RBE No.41/2023, dt.10.03.2023, the vacancies should have been notified before 22.12.2003 and advised that the matter be referred to the PCPO/SC. Accordingly, the case was referred to PCPO/SC.
iv. It is submitted that the PCPO/SC, vide letter No.P(R)500/NPS/II, dt.16.11.2023, clarified that the Railway Board, vide letter, dt.02.11.2023, had advised that switching over to OPS from NPS is allowed only in case of appointment against a post or vacancy which was advertised / notified prior to the date of notification of NPS, i.e., 22.12.2003. In view of the clarification given by the Railway Board, the Memorandum, dt.28.04.2023, allowing switching over to the R.S. (Pension) Rules, 1993, in place of the NPS was cancelled, vide letter, dt.09.05.2024, leading to filing of the present OA.
v. It is further submitted that the applicant was appointed as Jr.Clerk-
cum-Typist against RRB/SC's Notification No.01/2004, dt.11.12.2004, on 20.07.2006, against posts reserved for STs. In the Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.24 12:59:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 OA.No.395/2025 notification, it was mentioned that the notification also included special recruitment drive for SC/STs. The New Pension Scheme was introduced w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and since the employee was appointed on 20.07.2006, he was covered under the NPS system only.
vi. The applicant's contention is that the vacancies notified vide Notification No.01/2004, dt.11.12.2004, arose prior to 01.01.2004, hence, he is eligible for switch over to OPS from NPS and he had submitted a representation, accordingly. The same was considered and, according to the Respondents, he was granted the benefit of switch over to OPS from NPS on misinterpreting the Board's letter, vide RBE No.41/2023, dt.10.03.2023. However, the Railway Board, vide letter, dt.02.11.2023, had subsequently, advised that switching over to OPS from NPS is allowed only in case of appointment against a post or vacancy which was advertised/notified prior to the date of notification of the NPS, i.e., 22.12.2003, which means that the advertisement/notification is the main criteria and not the vacancies that arose prior to 01.01.2004. Hence, the applicant is not eligible to be covered under OPS.
vii. Respondents have prayed for dismissing the OA in the interest of justice.
5. Heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
6. It is considered appropriate to refer to the DoP&PW OM, dt. 3rd March, 2023, which is the basis for seeking option from Central Government employees to Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.24 12:59:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 OA.No.395/2025 switch over from the NPS to the OPS. Relevant portions of the OM are extracted below:
OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Coverage under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, in place of National Pension System, of those Central Government employees who were recruited against the posts/vacancies advertised /notified for recruitment, on or before 22.12.2003.
3. Representations have been received in this Department from the Government servants appointed on or after 01.01.2004 requesting for extending the benefit of the pension scheme under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (now 2021) on the ground that their appointment was made against the posts/vacancies advertised/notified for recruitment prior to notification for National Pension System, referring to court judgments of various Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunals allowing such benefits to applicants.
4. The matter has been examined in consultation with the Department of Financial Services, Department of Personnel & Training, Department of Expenditure and Department of Legal Affairs in the light of the various representations/references and decisions of the Courts in this regard. It has now been decided that, in all cases where the Central Government civil employee has been appointed against a post or vacancy which was advertised/notified for recruitment/appointment, prior to the date of notification for National Pension System i.e. 22.12.2003 and is covered under the National Pension System on joining service on or after 01.01.2004, may be given a one-time option to be covered under the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 (now 2021). This option may be exercised by the concerned Government servants latest by 31.08.2023.
5. Those Government servants who are eligible to exercise option in accordance with para-4 above, but who do not exercise this option by the stipulated date, shall continue to be covered by the National Pension System.
6. The option once exercised shall be final.
x x x
9. All Ministries/Departments are requested to give wide publicity to these orders without fail. The cases of those Government servants who fulfill the conditions mentioned in this O.M. and who exercise option to switch over to the pension scheme under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (now 2021) may be settled by the administrative Ministries/Departments in accordance with these orders."
RBE No.41/2023, dt.10.03.2023, forwarded the above OM to all the GMs, etc., of the Railways giving opportunity to Railway servants to exercise option in terms of DoP&PW's OM, dt.03.03.2023. As regards eligibility for conversion from NPS to OPS, there is absolutely no ambiguity.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.24 12:59:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 OA.No.395/2025
7. It is worth noting that the approval for coverage under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, conveyed, vide the letter, dt.28.04.2023, of the Sr.DPO/SC, to the applicant, refers to RB's RBE Nos.28/2020 & 41/2023.
8. O.M., dt.17.02.2020, of the DoP&PW, deals with the subject as follows -
"Subject: Coverage under Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, in place of National Pension System, of those Railway employees whose selection for appointment was finalized before 01.01.2004 but who joined Railway service on or after 01.01.2004."
9. Vide RBE No.28/2020, a copy of OM, dt.17.02.2020, has been communicated, in which the important provisions are as follows:
"3(vi). The result for recruitment was declared before 01.01.2004 but one or more candidates were declared disqualified on the grounds of medical fitness of verification of character and antecedents, caste or income certificates. Subsequently, on review, they were found fit for appointment and were issued offers of appointment on or after 01.01.2004.
In all the above illustrative cases, since the result for recruitment was declared before 01.01.2004, denial of the benefit of pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 to the affected Government servants is not considered justified.
4. The matter has been examined in consultation with the Department of Personnel & Training, Department of Expenditure and Department of Legal Affairs in the light of the various representations/references and decisions of the Courts in this regard. It has been decided that in all cases where the results for recruitment were declared before 01.01.2004 against vacancies occurring on or before 31.12.2003, the candidates declared successful for recruitment shall be eligible for coverage under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Accordingly, such Government servants who were declared successful for recruitment in the results declared on or before 31.12.2003 against vacancies occurring before 01.01.2004 and are covered under the National Pension System on joining service on or after 01.01.2004, may be given a one-time option to be covered under the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972. This option may be exercised by the concerned Government servants latest by 31.05.2020.
5. Those Government servants who are eligible to exercise option in accordance with para-4 above, but who do not exercise this option Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.24 12:59:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 OA.No.395/2025 by the stipulated date, shall continue to be covered by the National Pension System.
6. The option once exercised shall be final." (emphasis supplied) Thus, the Govt. of India directives, adopted by Railways, are very clear that coverage under the OPS/RS(Pension) Rules, 1993, have to meet the following conditions:
i. Employees should be recruited against the posts/vacancies advertised/notified for recruitment on or before 22.12.2003.
ii. Results for recruitment should have been declared before 01.01.2004 against the vacancies occurring on or before 31.12.2003 and the candidates should have been successful for such recruitment.
In this case, admittedly, the posts themselves were advertised on 11.12.2004 and the appointment letter was issued on 19.07.2006. Both the dates are much beyond the dates fixed under the Central Government/Railway guidelines.
10. Coming to the argument that the case has to be decided as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of N.R.Parmar which was considered in the case of Hariharan, this Tribunal has already held in OAs.788/2022 & 1835/2024, vide order, dt.12.06.2025, as follows -
"11.Both the parties have cited a plethora of judgments to buttress their claims. We could now focus on the basic principles, as laid down by the Courts which resulted in issue of guidelines by the DoPT from time to time as well as the resultant circulars / orders by the Respondent Department which have had far-reaching consequences in respect of inter-se seniority in different cadres. We Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.24 12:59:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 OA.No.395/2025 may scrutinise the action taken by the Respondents and judge the same in the light of the extant instructions and the applicable laws.
x x x x
14.Coming to the judgment in the Hariharan case, which was decided on 14.12.2022, while discussing the principle of rotation of the direct recruits and promotees, prima facie, the Court was of the view that seniority fixed based on the decision in the case of N R Parmar has to be given effect, though a reference was made to a larger Bench to decide whether the decision in the case of Meghachandra Singh could be said to be a binding precedent.
15.With reference to the dispute as above, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in its judgment, dt.13.06.2024 in WP.No.5172/2024 between Union of India & Ors., vs. V.S.Varshney & Ors., held that -
"4. It is contended that in a batch of Original Applications preferred by the Direct Recruits challenging the OM dated 26.10.2021 as well as OM dated 06.05.2022, whereby the seniority had been revised in the light of K. Meghachandra Singh's case (supra), the Tribunal has quashed the OMs and directed the respondents not to disturb the seniority list dated 28.07.2015 subject to the final outcome of the appeal or reference in Hariharan's case (supra).
5. It is submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for petitioners that doubting of the decision of the three-judge bench of the Apex Court in K. Meghachandra Singh's case (supra), by a later two judge bench and the reference to a larger bench cannot result in the obliteration of the decision of the three-judge bench and that the said decision is liable to be given effect to. Reliance is placed on several decisions of the Apex Court in support of this contention.
x x x
8. In view of the fact that the matter stands referred to two- judge bench in Hariharan's case (supra), the contention that the decision in K. Meghachandra Singh's case (supra), is no longer applicable, cannot be accepted in the light of the decision relied on by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for petitioners. We are therefore of the opinion that in the light of the judgment of two-judge bench of the Apex Court in Hariharan's case (supra), the seniority lists which were prepared on the strength of the Judgment of the Apex Court in K. Meghachandra Singh's case (supra), would have to govern Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.24 12:59:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 15 OA.No.395/2025 the field and be operated till the larger bench answers the question as referred by Hariharan's case (supra)."
16. Further, the Gauhati High Court, in its order, dt.30.01.2025, has clarified in WP(C) No.7111/2023 in Union of India & Ors., vs. Shri Chanchal Nag, that -
20. As we have already noted that the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.R. Parmar (supra) has already been overruled in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) and, accordingly, the order of the Tribunal based on the principle laid down in N.R. Parmar (supra) cannot be sustained.
21. It is true that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) has now been referred to a larger Bench in Hariharan (supra) but till date the judgment rendered in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) has neither been overruled nor modified and still holds the field and, therefore, it cannot be overlooked.
x x x x x
23. It is also worth mentioning that the present issue cannot remain stuck till the matter under reference to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court is settled. In the recent decision, dt.06.09.2023, in the Union Territory of Ladakh vs Jammu And Kashmir National Conference in Civil Appeal No. 5707/2023, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that -
"35. We are seeing before us judgments and orders by High Courts not deciding cases on the ground that the leading judgment of this Court on this subject is either referred to a larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto is pending. We have also come across examples of High Courts refusing deference to judgments of this Court on the score that a later Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness. In this regard, we lay down the position in law. We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands. It is not open, unless specifically directed by this Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review petition, as the case may be. It is also not open to a High Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has been doubted by a later Coordinate Bench. In any case, when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts, as held by a 5-Judge Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.24 12:59:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 16 OA.No.395/2025 6805.The High Courts, of course, will do so with careful regard to the facts and circumstances of the case before it."
11. Thus, the claim of the applicant for switching over from NPS to the OPS does not sustain in the eyes of law. The department have rectified their mistake made while issuing the order, vide memo, dt.28.04.2023, by cancelling it on 09.05.2024. The step taken by the department, in this regard, cannot be questioned. It is a well-known principle that if an error is committed by any authority is rectified in time by it, no irregularity or illegality can be attributed to it. The High Court of Odisha in Sujatha Patra vs, Utkal University, 2018 SCC Online ORI 418, decided on 20.11.2018, referred to the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement in Rajkumar Soni vs State of UP [2007 Insc 352], while refusing to interfere in the matter of correction of result of the petitioner therein, since striking down of the order of rectification would result in restoration of another order which was not in accordance with law. Hence, in this view of the mater, it cannot be argued that illegality has to be perpetuated.
12. In the light of the above discussion, no merit is found in the arguments of the applicant and the OA is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
15.10.2025
/ps/
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.24 12:59:57+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0