Post-cutoff appointees recruited against pre-NPS vacancies must have pension claims assessed under the one-time policy.

The applicants were selected through a 2009 recruitment process for Constable posts in the India Reserve Police, following an advertisement issued on 07.02.2009. Their formal appointment orders and joining dates fell in January 2010, after the 01.01.2010 cut-off under the New Pension Scheme.

After the matters had been reserved, the Government issued Order No. 305-F of 2026, establishing a mechanism to consider claims by employees appointed against posts or vacancies advertised/notified before the New Pension Scheme, despite joining on or after 01.01.2010.

Whether the applicants’ claims for coverage under the Old/Defined Pension Scheme should be determined by reference to their pre-cut-off recruitment and selection, notwithstanding their post-cut-off appointment and joining dates

Whether, in light of Government Order No. 305-F of 2026, the applicants’ eligibility should first be examined by the competent authority under the mechanism prescribed in that order

SRO-400 of 2009 amended Article 167 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations to provide for the New Pension Scheme for employees appointed or brought onto the regular establishment on or after 01.01.2010; the parties disputed whether the relevant date was appointment or earlier selection

Government Order No. 305-F of 2026 provides a one-time option for eligible employees appointed against posts or vacancies advertised/notified before the New Pension Scheme but covered by the New Pension Scheme because they joined on or after 01.01.2010; eligibility is to be assessed under its prescribed conditions and procedure

The Tribunal noted that the original dispute concerned the effect of the pre-2010 recruitment process, post-cut-off appointments, alleged administrative delay, and claimed parity with other recruits

Because Government Order No. 305-F of 2026 subsequently created a specific mechanism for claims of this nature, the Tribunal considered it appropriate for the competent authority to examine each applicant’s service records and eligibility under that order before the Tribunal addressed any surviving grievance

If an applicant is found eligible, consequential action is to follow; if found ineligible, the authority must issue a reasoned decision and communicate it to that applicant. The applicants remain free to pursue any remedy available in law if a grievance survives. No order as to costs