NPS Railway Employee’s Pension Bid For Nagarpalika Service Fails Without Proof Of Prior Permission To Apply For Railways: CAT

The applicant worked as a Clerk with Dahod Nagarpalika from 1 April 1998 until October 2005, when he joined the Railways as a Substitute Khalasi under the National Pension System (NPS).

He said he had sought counting of his Nagarpalika service in a representation dated 21 December 2005 and later relied on a Nagarpalika NOC stating that he had resigned to join Railway service.

The Railways rejected his 2021 request by order dated 27 August 2021, referring to the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 11 June 2020.

He filed this OA on 17 September 2021, seeking to quash that order and have his past service counted.

Section 21(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 requires an application to be filed within one year of the relevant final order.

The Tribunal also referred to D.C.S. Negi v. Union of India & Others, SLP (C) CC No. 3709 of 2011, for the principle that limitation must be considered.

The Tribunal applied the OM dated 11 June 2020, under which an NPS entrant seeking to count earlier service must, among other requirements, have served in a qualifying pensionable establishment and have left that employment by technical resignation.

For this purpose, the OM dated 17 August 2016 treats a resignation as technical where the employee applied for the new post through the proper channel, with the employer’s permission, and resigned on selection; the label used for the resignation is not determinative.

The Tribunal noted Rule 41 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 in the respondents’ submissions, but found that the applicant’s NPS entry meant his claim depended on the 2020 OM.

The OA was filed within one year of the 27 August 2021 rejection order. The Tribunal treated that order as the relevant cause of action because the applicant’s claim was founded on the 2020 OM, and held the OA was not time-barred.

On the merits, the applicant’s 2005 entry into Railway service under NPS satisfied one condition of the OM; the Tribunal also proceeded on the basis that Dahod Nagarpalika fell within the described category of State establishments.

However, the NOC showed only that he resigned to join the Railways. It did not establish that he had applied through the proper channel with prior permission from the Nagarpalika. As proof of technical resignation was therefore lacking, a condition common to the relevant OMs was not met.

The Tribunal considered a remand for fuller reasons unnecessary because the applicant had not proved this prerequisite.

It found no ground to interfere with the rejection order and dismissed the OA; any pending MA was also disposed of, with no order as to costs.