Authorities must decide the applicants’ Old Pension Scheme claim by a reasoned order within six weeks.

The applicants are serving as Assistant Professors and Librarians in the Higher Education Department of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, having been selected and appointed through recruitment processes initiated by the Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission under Advertisement Notifications Nos. 12-PSC of 2006 dated 28 December 2006, 03-PSC of 2009 dated 3 February 2009, and 06-PSC of 2009 dated 6 March 2009.

At the time the recruitment processes commenced, the Old Pension Scheme (“OPS”) was stated to be in force. During the pendency of the selection process, SRO 400 of 2009 dated 24 December 2009 introduced the New Pension Scheme (“NPS”) with effect from 1 January 2010.

The applicants contended that the delay in completing the selection process and issuing appointment orders was attributable to the authorities and was beyond their control.

Since their recommendations and appointments were made after 1 January 2010, they were brought under the NPS, despite having applied and participated in the recruitment process when the OPS was in force.

They therefore sought coverage under the OPS, transfer of amounts from their Permanent Retirement Account Numbers (“PRANs”) to their General Provident Fund (“GPF”) accounts, and consequential reliefs.

During arguments, the applicants confined their request to a direction that the O.A. be treated as a comprehensive representation and that their claim be decided by the competent authorities.

The respondents stated that they had no objection to such disposal, without prejudice to their rights and contentions.

1. Whether the applicants, whose recruitment processes commenced before the introduction of the NPS on 1 January 2010 but whose appointments were made thereafter, were entitled to consideration for coverage under the OPS?

2. Whether the applicants’ claim should be directed to be examined by the respondents through a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with the applicable rules and legal framework?

The Tribunal considered SRO 400 of 2009 dated 24 December 2009, which introduced the NPS with effect from 1 January 2010, as the relevant pensionary instrument governing the transition from the OPS to the NPS.

It also considered the principles of legitimate expectation and fairness in public employment, particularly the proposition that candidates who entered a recruitment process during the OPS regime should not automatically suffer adverse consequences from administrative delays beyond their control.

The Tribunal noted its reliance on the decision of the Jammu Bench in Mohammad Zafar & Ors. v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. , dated 5 February 2026, which had held that OPS benefits could not be denied merely because the authorities delayed completion of a recruitment process commenced during the OPS regime.

However, the Tribunal did not conclusively determine the applicants’ entitlement and directed examination of their claim under the applicable statutory provisions, rules, governing legal framework, eligibility requirements, and any legal impediment.

The Tribunal recorded the applicants’ contention that their recruitment processes began through advertisements issued in 2006 and 2009, before the NPS took effect, and that the subsequent delay in recommendations and appointments was attributable to the respondents rather than to the applicants.

The applicants relied on legitimate expectation and the reasoning in Mohammad Zafar to contend that the pensionary regime applicable at the commencement of recruitment should govern them.

Nevertheless, after hearing the matter, the applicants limited their prayer to administrative consideration of their claim.

Since the respondents did not object to that course, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to avoid expressing any opinion on the merits and instead required the competent authorities to evaluate the claim in accordance with the applicable law.

The respondents were directed to treat the O.A., its annexures, and any earlier representations as a comprehensive representation and to decide the applicants’ claim by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions, rules, and governing legal framework, subject to the applicants’ eligibility and entitlement and provided no legal impediment existed.

The respondents were required to complete the exercise within six weeks from the date of service of a certified copy of the order and the O.A. upon them.