Delay Condoned in O.A. Seeking Old Pension Scheme Despite Respondent Inaction.

The applicants filed an Original Application seeking the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme, alleging that the respondents applied SRO 400 of 2009, bringing them under the New Pension Scheme.

They claimed hostile discrimination and unequal treatment because their batchmates, recruited/selected under the same advertisement dated 07-02-2009, were governed by the Old Pension Rules.

The applicants also filed M.A. No. 715/2024 for condonation of delay in filing the O.A., and M.A. No. 40/2026 to bring on record judgments/orders from similar matters.

The respondents, despite being served, did not file objections to the condonation of delay application.

Whether the delay in filing the Original Application should be condoned by the Tribunal.

Whether the applicants are entitled to have their claim for the Old Pension Scheme considered by the respondents, given that similarly situated employees were granted the benefit.

The Tribunal applied Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, which governs the period of limitation for filing an O.A., stipulating a one-year limit from the date of the final order, but allowing for condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown.

It also relied on the principle established in Anil Ramdas Pawar vs Union of India, through Secretary (2020) SCC Online (Bombay) 375, where the court held that 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to substantiate the cause of justice, preventing defeat on technicalities, and that the acceptability of the explanation is the criteria, not the length of time.

The Tribunal considered the material and explanation provided by the applicants for the delay, noting that the respondents failed to file objections to the condonation application despite being served.

Citing Anil Ramdas Pawar, which prioritizes a liberal approach to substantial justice over technicalities, the Tribunal found that the applicants demonstrated sufficient cause, as their reasons did not reflect any lack of bona fides, deliberate inaction, or negligence.

The Tribunal held that a "hyper-technical, mathematical or pedantic approach in such service matters is nothing but denial of justice".

Thus proceeded to hear the O.A.

Regarding the merits, the counsel requested a direction to the respondents to treat the O.A. as a representation because similarly situated employees under the same advertisement dated 07-02-2009 had already received the Old Pension Scheme benefit, and there was a prior order in a similar case.

M.A. No. 40/2026, seeking permission to place judgments on record, was also allowed.

The O.A. was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat it as a representation and decide the applicants' claim for the Old Pension Scheme within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order, considering that similarly placed employees recruited under the same advertisement already received the benefits.

No costs were awarded.