Facts
The three applicants, Smt. Ramya U., N.R. Vishweshwara Prasad, and Ayesha M., are employees of the Department of Posts serving in the Chikkamagaluru Division
Source reference: p. 1-2They approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bangalore Bench, challenging an impugned reply (No.B1/CAT/dlgs) dated 04.08.2022 issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Chikmagalur
Source reference: p. 3The applicants sought the quashing of this reply and a consequential direction to the respondents to transition them from the New Pension Scheme (NPS) to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS)
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme in place of the New Pension Scheme
Source reference: p. 3 / para. 12. Whether the dispute in the present application is governed by the precedent set in OA No. 297/2025
Source reference: p. 3 / para. 2Law Applied
The court applied the principle of stare decisis and judicial consistency, specifically relying on the ruling in Smt. Kanthamani T. and another vs. Union of India and others (OA No. 297/2025)
Source reference: p. 3This precedent determines the eligibility criteria and legal framework for the conversion of employees from the New Pension Scheme to the Old Pension Scheme under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Source reference: p. 3Reasoning
The Tribunal observed that the legal and factual issues raised by the applicants regarding the extension of the Old Pension Scheme were identical to those already adjudicated by the same Bench
Source reference: p. 3Justice S. Sujatha and Dr. Sanjiv Kumar noted that the matter was "squarely covered" by the decision pronounced on the same day in the case of Smt. Kanthamani T.
Source reference: p. 3Consequently, rather than re-examining the merits of the pension reform policy independently, the Tribunal applied the findings of the reference case to the present application, maintaining that the applicants' claims did not warrant a departure from the established ruling in the related matter
Source reference: p. 3Holding
The Tribunal held that the Original Application must follow the outcome of the covered case
Accordingly, the OA was dismissed in similar terms to OA No. 297/2025. All pending Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) were disposed of, and no order was made as to costs
Source reference: p. 3, 4Original Court PDF
RAMYA UvsDEPARTMENT OF POSTS
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in