OPS cannot be denied to eligible compassionate appointees solely for missing an uncommunicated option deadline.

The applicant’s father, an ASI (Executive) in the Delhi Police, died in service on 28.10.2003.

The applicant applied for compassionate appointment on 14.11.2003, underwent physical measurement on 25.11.2003, and was appointed as Constable (Executive) pursuant to an order dated 18.10.2004; he joined on 21.10.2004 and was consequently covered under the New Pension Scheme because his joining was after 01.01.2004.

In 2020, the applicant sought coverage under the Old Pension Scheme, but his request was rejected on 28.08.2020 on the ground that the Screening Committee had considered the compassionate appointment cases in 2004.

The Government’s Office Memorandum dated 03.03.2023 introduced a one-time option for eligible employees recruited against posts or vacancies advertised/notified on or before 22.12.2003, but the applicant did not exercise the option by the extended deadline of 31.08.2023.

After learning that a similarly situated employee, Amit Kumar, had been granted OPS coverage, the applicant submitted a representation on 20.08.2024.

During the proceedings, the applicant relied on the DoPT office order dated 22.06.2026, which clarified that, for compassionate appointments, the date of application would be treated as the crucial date; applicants who applied on or before 31.12.2003 could be considered under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021.

1. Whether the applicant, who applied for compassionate appointment before 01.01.2004 but joined service after 01.01.2004, was eligible to be considered for coverage under the Old Pension Scheme in light of the DoPT office order dated 22.06.2026 read with the Government OM dated 03.03.2023?

2. Whether the applicant could be denied OPS coverage solely because he had not exercised the one-time option by 31.08.2023, particularly when the respondents had not established that the relevant instructions were personally communicated to him?

3. Whether the applicant’s delay in seeking the benefit barred relief on the grounds of limitation, delay, laches, or acquiescence?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the Government OM dated 03.03.2023, which permitted a one-time shift from NPS to OPS for employees recruited against posts or vacancies advertised/notified on or before 22.12.2003, subject to the prescribed conditions and exercise of option by 31.08.2023.

It further relied on the DoPT office order dated 22.06.2026, which prescribed the date of application as the crucial date for compassionate appointments and extended consideration under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 to eligible applicants who had applied on or before 31.12.2003.

These authorities establish that delay and laches depend on the facts, prejudice, acquiescence and conduct of the claimant; however, service claims involving continuing pensionary consequences may not be barred merely by delay where third-party rights are unaffected.

The Tribunal also relied on its earlier decision in Rohtash Kumar v. Commissioner of Police, O.A. No. 3371/2022, concerning removal of disadvantage caused by an employee’s unawareness of a beneficial policy.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had applied for compassionate appointment on 14.11.2003, before the relevant cut-off date, and that his eligibility could therefore be assessed by reference to the date of application rather than the later date of appointment or joining.

Although the applicant had not exercised the 2023 option by 31.08.2023, the respondents produced no material demonstrating that the OM dated 03.03.2023 or the subsequent communication extending the deadline was personally served on, or specifically brought to the applicant’s notice.

The applicant’s prior request for OPS coverage in 2020 also indicated that he had consistently sought the more beneficial pension scheme; accordingly, the Tribunal held that it was improbable that he had knowingly declined the 2023 option.

The respondents’ objection was confined to non-exercise of the option and did not establish any conscious refusal by the applicant.

Since the claim concerned pensionary coverage and did not affect seniority, promotion or settled rights of third parties, the Tribunal held that delay and laches did not defeat the claim.

The balance of convenience consequently favoured permitting the applicant to exercise the option belatedly.

The respondents were directed to obtain the applicant’s option to shift from NPS to OPS in accordance with the OM dated 03.03.2023 and the applicable instructions, and thereafter grant him the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme.

The entire exercise was directed to be completed within 12 weeks from receipt or production of a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.