Belated NPS-to-OPS option accepted where inadequate notice coincides with exceptional personal circumstances.

The applicant applied pursuant to the MCD advertisement dated 23 August 2003 for appointment as Medical Officer, was selected, and joined as General Duty Medical Officer-II after appointment proceedings completed in 2004–2005.

Since the post had been advertised before 22 December 2003, she claimed eligibility under the DoP&PW Office Memorandum dated 3 March 2023, which permitted employees appointed against pre-22 December 2003 vacancies but covered by the National Pension System (NPS) to exercise a one-time option for coverage under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, by 31 August 2023.

MCD circulated the OM on 3 August 2023 by directing Heads of Departments to give it wide publicity and by uploading it on its website.

The applicant did not exercise the option within the prescribed period.

She attributed the delay to her husband’s prolonged critical illness and death on 9 October 2023, her mother’s stage-V chronic kidney disease, and professional and personal pressures.

She submitted her option/representation on 18 September 2024, followed by reminders, but MCD rejected it on 29 November 2024 solely because it was beyond the deadline of 31 August 2023.

She thereafter approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

1. Whether the applicant, having been appointed against a vacancy advertised before 22 December 2003, was eligible to exercise the one-time option for migration from NPS to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) under the DoP&PW OM dated 3 March 2023.

2. Whether MCD’s communication of the OM through its circular dated 3 August 2023 and website publication constituted adequate notice to the applicant, notwithstanding the absence of individual communication.

3. Whether, in view of the applicant’s exceptional personal circumstances and the alleged inadequacy of notice, her belated option dated 18 September 2024 could be accepted despite expiry of the prescribed deadline.

4. Whether the applicant was entitled to relief on the basis of the Coordinate Bench’s decision in Ritu Saxena v. MCD and the principles concerning effective notice referred to from Hari Kishore Sharma v. State of Rajasthan.

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

The DoP&PW OM dated 3 March 2023 created a one-time option for Central Government employees appointed against posts or vacancies advertised/notified before 22 December 2003, but who joined service on or after 1 January 2004 under NPS, to be covered by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, subject to exercise of the option by 31 August 2023.

The Tribunal applied the principle that a service-benefit option having significant pensionary consequences must be brought to the notice of affected employees through an effective and meaningful mode; mere website publication is not necessarily adequate absent a requirement that employees regularly inspect the website.

It also considered the equality and non-arbitrariness concern under Article 14, particularly in the context of MCD granting a longer option period to another class of employees.

The Tribunal referred to Ritu Saxena v. MCD, OA No. 4976/2024, and the notice-related reasoning in Hari Kishore Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., CWP Nos. 5940/2003 and connected matters.

The Tribunal found that the applicant fell within the substantive eligibility class contemplated by the OM because her post had been advertised before 22 December 2003.

Although MCD had issued the circular dated 3 August 2023 and uploaded it on its website, the Tribunal held that there was no material demonstrating that the Heads of Departments had actually communicated the circular to each affected employee through a meaningful method, such as individual or electronic communication.

The applicant was given only 29 days after MCD’s circular to exercise the option, and the Tribunal also noted that MCD had subsequently granted three months to another category of employees for exercising a similar option.

Against this background, the applicant’s explanation—her husband’s serious illness and death, her mother’s advanced kidney disease, and the resulting emotional and professional pressures—was accepted as genuine and exceptional.

Taking a sympathetic and humanitarian view, and following the approach adopted in Ritu Saxena, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to relax the deadline in the applicant’s individual case, while expressly limiting the relief to the peculiar facts before it.

MCD was directed to treat the applicant’s representation/option dated 18 September 2024 as a valid option for migration from NPS to OPS pursuant to the DoP&PW OM dated 3 March 2023.

The relief was granted as a special consideration based on the peculiar facts and circumstances and was not to be treated as a precedent by others.

The respondents were directed to implement the order, preferably within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy.

No order as to costs was made, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.