Administrative Instructions Cannot Override Judicial Directions to Adjust NPS Refunds Against Post-Retirement OPS Benefits.

The applicant, a retired Track Maintainer-II, sought the implementation of a prior Tribunal order dated 26.06.2024, which directed the respondents to transition her from the New Pension Scheme (NPS) to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS).

The High Court of Kerala upheld this direction. Following the judgment, Southern Railway issued an order on 18.02.2026 requiring the applicant to first remit back 60% of the NPS amount (Rs. 1,235,026/-) including interest before her pension could be processed.

The respondents justified this demand by citing a Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare (DoPPW) Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 20.10.2023, which stipulates that retired employees must refund Government NPS contributions and returns to avail OPS benefits.

The applicant filed these M.A.s seeking implementation of the original order through adjustment of dues rather than prior payment, and for waiver of interest on the refund.

1. Whether the respondents can demand a prior lump-sum refund of NPS benefits as a condition precedent for implementing a judicial direction to provide OPS benefits, despite a court order directing "adjustment".

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to a waiver of interest on the refund of the NPS amount.

The Tribunal applied the principle of judicial discipline, which mandates that administrative instructions (like the DoPPW O.M. dated 20.10.2023) cannot override or alter a final judicial direction that has reached finality through the High Court.

The Tribunal relied on the legal nature of pension funds, noting that funds under the New Pension Scheme are held in separate accounts that accrue interest, making the refund of such interest a legal necessity upon switching schemes.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' reliance on the O.M. dated 20.10.2023, noting that the respondents failed to bring this administrative instruction to the Tribunal's notice during the original hearing or via a Review Application.

The Tribunal observed that the original order dated 26.06.2024 specifically directed that pensionary benefits be worked out "after adjusting payments made under the New Pension Scheme," meaning a net settlement rather than a prior lump-sum payment by the pensioner.

To allow the respondents to impose new conditions at the execution stage would violate judicial discipline.

Regarding the waiver of interest, the Tribunal reasoned that since NPS funds are invested and earn interest, any refund to the government must include that interest to be legally proper; hence, the interest cannot be waived.

The Tribunal dismissed the prayer for waiver of interest (M.A. 468/2025), holding that the refund of the pension fund must include interest to be legally valid. No order as to costs.