Old Pension Scheme claims must be considered under the one-time option, subject to eligibility.

The applicant’s father died in harness, and the applicant’s compassionate appointment was processed and sanctioned before the New Pension Scheme (NPS) came into force.

Although the prescribed selection formalities were completed, his formal appointment order as a Constable was issued on 15 July 2010, and he joined thereafter.

The applicant challenged his coverage under the NPS, contending that the delay in issuing the appointment order was attributable to the Respondents and that similarly situated employees had received the benefit of the unamended pension rules.

During the hearing, the Respondents produced Government Order No. 305-F of 2026, which provides a one-time option for eligible employees appointed against posts or vacancies advertised or notified before the NPS notification, but who joined service on or after 1 January 2010, to seek coverage under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS).

The applicant asked that the O.A. be disposed of under that Government Order, with liberty to exercise the option.

Whether the applicant’s claim to coverage under the unamended pension rules should be determined on its merits, or considered in the first instance under Government Order No. 305-F of 2026.

Whether the O.A. should be disposed of while preserving the applicant’s right to pursue an appropriate remedy if his grievance remains after consideration under that Government Order.

Government Order No. 305-F of 2026 provides a one-time option for eligible Jammu and Kashmir Government employees covered by the NPS, who joined service on or after 1 January 2010 against posts or vacancies advertised or notified before the NPS was notified through SRO-400 dated 24 December 2009, to seek coverage under the Defined Pension Scheme (OPS), subject to the order’s conditions and prescribed procedure.

The option must be exercised within three months of the Government Order, by 28 December 2026, and the competent authority must scrutinize eligibility and decide the case in accordance with the order.

The Tribunal did not determine the applicant’s substantive entitlement under the pension rules or decide the validity of the challenged action; it left all questions of fact and law open.

In light of the subsequent Government Order and the applicant’s request to proceed under it, the Tribunal considered that the applicant’s grievance could first be examined through the mechanism established by that order rather than adjudicated on its merits in the O.A.

It therefore directed that, if the applicant exercised the option in the prescribed manner and within the stipulated period, the competent authority should consider his case under the Government Order and applicable rules, subject to his eligibility and entitlement.

The Tribunal made no finding that the applicant qualified for OPS.

The applicant may exercise the option within the prescribed period; if his grievance survives the competent authority’s consideration, he remains at liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy in law.

Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.