Compassionate appointee’s Old Pension Scheme claim must be reconsidered under the subsequent DOPT clarification.

The applicant, Usha Rani, challenged the order dated 1 November 2024 by which Respondent No. 2 rejected her claim for coverage under the Old Pension Scheme under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and sought withdrawal of her coverage under the National Pension System.

The impugned order had been passed with reference to the D.O.P.T. Office Memorandum dated 25 June 2020.

The applicant contended that her case, concerning compassionate appointment made on or after 1 January 2004 pursuant to an application submitted before that date or pending on that date, was covered by the subsequent D.O.P.T. O.M. dated 22 June 2026.

The respondents stated that the 25 June 2020 O.M. had been superseded by the O.M. dated 3 March 2023, which primarily addressed appointments made pursuant to advertisements and did not specifically deal with compassionate appointments.

Since the applicant remained in service and had not begun receiving pension, the Tribunal considered remand appropriate.

1. Whether the applicant’s claim for coverage under the Old Pension Scheme required reconsideration in light of the subsequent D.O.P.T. O.M. dated 22 June 2026 concerning eligible compassionate appointees.

2. Whether the impugned rejection order dated 1 November 2024 should be set aside and the matter remitted to the competent authority for a fresh, reasoned decision.

The Tribunal applied the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, governing coverage under the Old Pension Scheme, along with the applicable D.O.P.T. instructions and Office Memoranda.

It noted that the O.M. dated 25 June 2020 had been superseded by the O.M. dated 3 March 2023, and that the later O.M. dated 22 June 2026 specifically addressed the position of compassionate appointees whose applications had been submitted before 1 January 2004 or were pending on that date.

The governing principle applied was that an administrative claim must be reconsidered in accordance with the latest applicable instructions and decided by the competent authority through a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal found that the rejection of the applicant’s claim had been based on the earlier O.M. dated 25 June 2020, although that O.M. had subsequently been superseded.

It further recognized that the O.M. dated 3 March 2023 did not expressly resolve the specific question of compassionate appointments made without an advertisement.

Since the applicant relied on the later O.M. dated 22 June 2026, which purportedly clarified the eligibility of such compassionate appointees, the Tribunal held that the competent authority should reconsider the claim under the current legal and administrative framework.

As the applicant was still in service and had not commenced drawing pension, remand would not cause disruption to pensionary payments and was considered the appropriate procedural relief.

It set aside the impugned order dated 1 November 2024 and directed Respondent No. 2 to reconsider the applicant’s claim afresh, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, instructions, and the D.O.P.T. O.M. dated 22 June 2026, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving the Tribunal’s order.

The Original Application was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.