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

The applicants, serving as Constables in the Jammu and Kashmir Police, were selected through recruitment processes initiated before SRO-400 dated 24 December 2009, which introduced the New Pension Scheme (NPS).

Their appointment orders were issued in 2010, and they were consequently covered by the NPS rather than the Old Pension Scheme (OPS).

They attributed the delay in appointment to administrative and procedural causes and challenged the rejection of their claims for OPS coverage.

During the proceedings, the respondents produced Government Order No. 305-F of 2026, dated 28 September 2026, which provides an eligible employee appointed on or after 1 January 2010 against a post or vacancy advertised before SRO-400 with a one-time option to seek coverage under the Defined Pension Scheme (OPS).

The applicants then confined their requested relief to consideration under that Government Order and did not press their other reliefs.

Whether the applicants’ claims for OPS coverage should first be considered under Government Order No. 305-F of 2026, rather than determined on their merits in these proceedings.

Whether the Tribunal should decide the validity of the impugned rejection orders or the applicants’ substantive entitlement to OPS coverage.

Government Order No. 305-F of 2026 establishes a one-time option for eligible government employees covered by the NPS, where their posts or vacancies were advertised or notified before SRO-400 dated 24 December 2009 and they joined service on or after 1 January 2010, to seek coverage under the Defined Pension Scheme (OPS), subject to the Order’s conditions.

The option was to be exercised within three months of the Order’s issuance—by 28 December 2026—and the competent Administrative Department was to scrutinize eligibility and issue its decision; the Tribunal did not derive or apply any separate substantive rule on OPS entitlement in this decision.

Because the Government Order created a specific process for considering the applicants’ claims, and the applicants agreed to pursue that process, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to refer their claims to the competent authority in the first instance.

The Tribunal therefore did not determine whether the applicants were individually eligible, whether SRO-400 applied to them, or whether the impugned rejection orders were correct. It left those questions open, subject to consideration under the Government Order and applicable rules.

Applicants who exercise the option in the prescribed manner and within the stipulated period are to have their cases considered by the competent authority, subject to eligibility and entitlement.

If any grievance remains after that consideration, the applicants may pursue an appropriate remedy in law.

Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of; no order as to costs was made.