CAT - ['Delhi']

Compasasionate appointment applicants who applied prior to December 22, 2003, are entitled to the Old Pension Scheme.

VIJENDER KUMAR vs RAILWAY

CAT - ['Delhi']JUDGMENT: April 20, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The applicant’s father, a Senior Technical (MCM) with Northern Railway, died in harness on May 23, 2003

Source reference: para. 2

The applicant applied for a compassionate appointment on June 23, 2003

Source reference: para. 2

Following administrative procedures (screening/medical), the respondents issued an offer of appointment on March 17, 2004, and the applicant joined the same day

Source reference: para. 2

Initially, the respondents treated the applicant under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) and deducted GPF contributions until 2016

Source reference: para. 3

However, the respondents subsequently discontinued OPS deductions and unilaterally switched the applicant to the New Pension System (NPS), effective from 2016, on the grounds that his appointment occurred after January 1, 2004

Source reference: para. 3, 4, 9

The applicant sought a declaration for coverage under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972

Source reference: para. 1
02

Issues

1. Whether a candidate whose recruitment process (via compassionate appointment) was initiated prior to the notification of the New Pension System (December 22, 2003) is entitled to coverage under the Old Pension Scheme, despite joining service after January 1, 2004

Source reference: para. 11, 14
03

Law Applied

Department of Pension Pensioners' Welfare (DoPPW) Office Memorandum dated March 3, 2023, which allows a one-time option for coverage under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, for employees whose recruitment process was notified/initiated prior to December 22, 2003, but who joined on or after January 1, 2004

Source reference: para. 11, 12

Principle from Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa (2022), which establishes that applicants should not suffer due to administrative delays or "absolute callousness" by the authorities in processing compassionate appointments

Source reference: para. 5

Uttarakhand High Court's ruling in State of Uttarakhand v. Balwant Singh, holding that service conditions prevailing at the start of recruitment cannot be altered to the disadvantage of the recruit

Source reference: para. 6
04

Reasoning

The Tribunal examined the timeline of the applicant's appointment process to determine the "initiation" date. It was noted that while the appointment letter was issued on March 17, 2004—after the NPS cut-off of January 1, 2004—the applicant had submitted his formal application for compassionate grounds on June 23, 2003

Source reference: para. 14, 15

The court reasoned that the recruitment process is deemed to have commenced on the date of the application

Source reference: para. 14

Referring to the DoPPT O.M. dated March 3, 2023, the Tribunal found that since the process was initiated before the NPS notification date of December 22, 2003, the applicant met the criteria for the Old Pension Scheme

Source reference: para. 15

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' contention that the appointment date was the sole determinant, emphasizing that administrative delays in screening and medical clearance (under the respondents' control) should not deprive the applicant of vested expectations and prior service conditions

Source reference: para. 5, 12, 13
05

Holding

The Tribunal allowed the O.A., declaring that the applicant is entitled to the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme

It held that the recruitment process started on June 23, 2003, satisfying the requirements of the March 3, 2023, O.M. regarding pre-December 2003 initiation

Source reference: para. 15

The respondents were directed to grant the applicant the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme (CCS Pension Rules, 1972/2021) and to cease NPS-related recoveries

Source reference: para. 15, 16
CAT - ['Delhi']

Original Court PDF

VIJENDER KUMARvsRAILWAY

CAT - ['Delhi'] · April 20, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment