An NPS employee cannot claim invalid pension without timely prescribed option following medical decategorization.

The applicant was serving in the Postal Department and was appointed as a departmental Postman with effect from 27 November 2009.

He retired on superannuation on 31 January 2022 and was consequently governed by the National Pension System (NPS), having entered regular departmental service after 1 January 2004.

During service, he suffered from serious eye problems and relied upon a Medical Board certificate dated 1 January 2022 declaring him 100% disabled.

On the date of retirement, he submitted an option and documents seeking pensionary benefits under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 on the basis of invalidation/disability.

His representations were rejected, including by order dated 22 March 2022, on the ground that he had entered departmental service after 1 January 2004 and was covered by the NPS.

The applicant challenged the departmental orders and sought conversion of his retirement from superannuation to retirement on invalidation, or acceptance of his option for pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

1. Whether the applicant, being covered by the NPS, was entitled to opt for pensionary benefits under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 on the ground of disability/invalidation under Rule 10 of the CCS (Implementation of National Pension System) Rules, 2021?

2. Whether the applicant’s representation and option submitted on the date of his superannuation could convert his retirement into retirement on invalidation, notwithstanding that he had not been declared medically decategorized/invalid for service by the competent authority before retirement?

3. Whether the respondents’ rejection of the applicant’s claim and extension of NPS benefits suffered from illegality or procedural infirmity?

The Tribunal applied Rule 10 of the CCS (Implementation of National Pension System) Rules, 2021, which permits a Government servant covered by the NPS to exercise an option for benefits under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 or the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 in cases of death, boarding out on account of disablement, or retirement on invalidation; existing NPS employees are required to exercise the option as soon as possible after notification of the Rules, in the prescribed manner before the Head of Office.

The Court treated the rule as requiring the relevant option to be exercised in the prescribed form after the employee has been medically decategorized or otherwise validly retired on invalidation.

Employees appointed to regular departmental service after 1 January 2004 are ordinarily governed by the NPS and are not entitled to the general benefits of the pre-NPS CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant was covered by the NPS because his regular departmental appointment as Postman commenced on 27 November 2009.

Although the applicant relied on the Medical Board’s declaration of 100% disability dated 1 January 2022, the Tribunal found that he had not been declared medically decategorized or invalid for service by the competent authority before his retirement.

His first claim for invalid pension was made only on 31 January 2022, the date on which he retired on superannuation, and was made through a simple representation rather than through a timely, prescribed option establishing retirement on invalidation.

On this basis, the Tribunal held that Rule 10 did not require the respondents to treat his superannuation retirement as retirement on invalidation.

Since the applicant continued under the NPS and no valid medical invalidation had been established before retirement, the respondents were justified in granting him benefits under the NPS.

It held that the applicant was not entitled to pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 merely on the basis of a disability certificate and an option submitted on the date of superannuation, particularly when he had not been declared medically decategorized or retired on invalidation by the competent authority.

The impugned departmental orders were found neither illegal nor infirm.

The Original Application was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs, and all connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of.