Direction to decide representation for refund of NPS contribution following conversion to Old Pension Scheme.

The applicant, a retired Khallasi, was initially engaged as Hot Weather Casual Labour in 1987 and regularized on April 23, 2005.

He retired on August 31, 2019, under the National Pension System (NPS).

Following a Railway Board circular dated March 3, 2020, the applicant opted to switch from NPS to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS).

This option was accepted on July 23, 2022, and a revised Pension Payment Order (PPO) was issued on August 29, 2023.

To facilitate this switch, the applicant deposited the Government’s contribution of ₹6,10,020.

While the applicant received 60% of the NPS corpus at retirement, he alleged that the remaining 40% of his own contribution remains with the NSDL/Respondents and has neither been refunded nor adjusted.

The applicant filed the present Original Application (OA) seeking a refund, alongside a delay condonation application, asserting that the matter involves a continuing cause of action.

Whether the delay in filing the Original Application should be condoned on the grounds of a continuing cause of action regarding unpaid monetary benefits.

Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the applicant's pending representations concerning the refund of the 40% NPS contribution following his transition to OPS.

The court primarily exercised its jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It considered the principles of limitation and "continuing cause of action" in matters of pensionary and monetary dues.

The court also referenced the administrative requirement for authorities to pass "reasoned and speaking orders" when disposing of representations regarding statutory or service benefits.

The substantive transition of the employee was governed by the Railway Board’s letter dated March 3, 2020, regarding the switch from NPS to OPS.

The applicant contended that the withholding of his own contribution (40% of the NPS corpus) after he had already complied with the requirement to refund the Government's share constitutes a recurring grievance.

The Tribunal noted that although the respondents raised objections regarding limitation and laches, they did not oppose a direction for a time-bound administrative decision.

The court found that since the applicant’s representations dated November 10, 2025, were still pending, it was appropriate to bypass a detailed merit-based adjudication at this stage in favor of directing the competent authority to act.

The Tribunal emphasized that the merits of the claim and the specific issue of limitation remain open for the respondents' consideration during the administrative review.

It directed the competent authority among the respondents to consider and decide the applicant's representations dated November 10, 2025, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving the certified order.

All pending Miscellaneous Applications, including the delay condonation application, were treated as disposed of in light of these directions.

No costs were awarded.