Competent authority must decide the representation seeking OPS coverage by a reasoned order within three months.

The applicant was initially appointed as a Telegraph Messenger in the Department of Posts on 17 March 1984, was subsequently absorbed/adjusted as an EDR on 29 March 1995, and was promoted as MTS on 21 February 2017.

He retired on superannuation on 31 October 2024.

The respondents treated the applicant’s promotion date as relevant for pension purposes and extended the benefit of the New Pension Scheme (NPS), rather than the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), which the applicant claimed on the basis of his initial appointment before the implementation of NPS on 1 January 2004.

The applicant submitted a representation dated 27 October 2025 seeking conversion from NPS to OPS and payment of consequential retiral benefits; the representation remained pending.

During hearing, the applicant limited his prayer to a direction for consideration and disposal of the pending representation by a reasoned and speaking order.

The respondents had no objection to such a direction.

Whether the applicant, having entered Government service on 17 March 1984, was entitled to consideration for coverage under the Old Pension Scheme instead of the New Pension Scheme applicable from 1 January 2004?

Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 27 October 2025 by passing a reasoned and speaking order?

The Tribunal applied the principle that an administrative representation concerning pensionary entitlement must be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law and decided through a reasoned and speaking order.

It also directed consideration of the representation in the light of the Tribunal’s earlier order dated 7 August 2026 in O.A. No. 872 of 2026, which had relied upon the order dated 16 October 2023 in O.A. No. 1133 of 2021.

Since the applicant confined his prayer to consideration of his representation, the Tribunal did not adjudicate the substantive question of entitlement to OPS or NPS.

The applicant asserted that his initial entry into Government service in 1984 preceded the introduction of NPS in 2004 and therefore entitled him to OPS, notwithstanding his subsequent promotion as MTS in 2017.

However, the Tribunal expressly refrained from determining the merits of that claim.

In view of the pending representation, the applicant’s limited prayer, and the respondents’ absence of objection, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to require the competent authority to examine the claim in accordance with law and the relevant prior Tribunal orders.

The direction preserved the applicant’s substantive claim while ensuring a reasoned administrative determination within a fixed period.

The competent authority among the respondents was directed to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 27 October 2025, in light of the Tribunal’s order dated 7 August 2026 in O.A. No. 872 of 2026 and the order dated 16 October 2023 in O.A. No. 1133 of 2021, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

The Tribunal clarified that it had not entered into the merits of the case.

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