Authorities must decide NPS-to-OPS conversion representations by reasoned orders under applicable rules, including parity claims.

The applicant, Smt. Shunita Devi, widow of Late Umed Singh, filed an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the respondents’ failure to extend the Old GPF/Pension Scheme to her deceased husband and seeking fixation of his pensionary benefits under the Old Pension Scheme with effect from 31 December 2019, along with family pension from 18 November 2020 and consequential arrears and interest.

During the proceedings, it emerged that the applicant had submitted a representation dated 3 October 2025 seeking conversion from the New Pension Scheme to the Old Pension Scheme, but the representation remained pending consideration.

The applicant also relied on four allegedly similarly situated Delhi Jal Board employees who had been granted the benefit of the Old GPF/Pension Scheme, namely Balbir Singh, Dharam Pal, Satbir Singh and Dharamvir Singh, who retired between 30 November 2019 and 30 April 2020.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and dispose of the applicant’s pending representation seeking conversion from the New Pension Scheme to the Old Pension Scheme in accordance with the applicable rules and governmental instructions.

2. Whether the applicant’s claim of parity with the similarly situated employees who had allegedly been granted the Old GPF/Pension Scheme was required to be examined by the respondents.

3. Whether the applicant was entitled, at this stage, to direct fixation of pensionary benefits, family pension, arrears and interest under the Old Pension Scheme.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the principle that claims concerning conversion between the New Pension Scheme and the Old Pension Scheme must be examined in accordance with the applicable service rules, instructions and Office Memoranda issued by the Department of Personnel and Training from time to time.

Where a representation raising such a claim is pending, the competent authority is required to consider it and pass a reasoned and speaking order, including the claimant’s plea of parity with similarly situated employees.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s representation dated 3 October 2025 had not been decided by the respondents.

Since conversion from the New Pension Scheme to the Old Pension Scheme is governed by structured governmental rules and instructions, the Tribunal considered it inappropriate to grant the substantive pensionary reliefs directly without first obtaining a decision from the competent authority under the applicable framework.

The applicant’s reliance on four employees who had allegedly received the benefit of the Old Scheme raised a claim of parity that also required examination by the respondents.

Accordingly, the Tribunal directed consideration of both the pending representation and the parity claim through a reasoned and speaking order.

The respondents were directed to complete the exercise preferably within six weeks from receipt of the order and communicate the decision to the applicant forthwith.

The Tribunal did not itself grant the Old Pension Scheme, family pension, arrears or interest; those claims were left for consideration by the respondents.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.