Pre-2007 retirees and employees serving beyond 2007 are covered by NPCIL’s 1990 and 2025 schemes, respectively.

The petitioners challenged their exclusion from the NPCIL Employees’ Non-Contributory Provident Fund Rules, 1994.

The 2018 petitions sought a declaration that Rule 1.3 was illegal and inclusion in the 1994 scheme or, alternatively, a better pension scheme than the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.

The 2025 petitions challenged the NPCIL Defined Contribution Pension Scheme, 2025, and sought inclusion in the 1994 scheme.

The petitioners said they had been recruited in 1987 and retired before 2007 without pension coverage.

NPCIL submitted that employees recruited before 2007 and retired before that year were covered by its Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1990, while those who continued in service beyond 2007 were covered by the 2025 scheme, subject to the applicable terms and conditions.

Whether Rule 1.3 of the NPCIL Employees’ Non-Contributory Provident Fund Rules, 1994, should be declared illegal and the petitioners included in that scheme or provided a better pension scheme.

Whether the NPCIL Defined Contribution Pension Scheme, 2025, should be declared illegal and the petitioners included in the 1994 scheme.

Whether any further adjudication was required in light of NPCIL’s submissions about the schemes applicable to the petitioners.

The Court did not rely on or articulate a substantive statutory rule, legal test, or precedent in resolving the petitions.

The claims arose under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the Court considered the three NPCIL schemes identified in the record: the 1990 Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, the 1994 Employees’ Non-Contributory Provident Fund Rules, and the 2025 Defined Contribution Pension Scheme.

It did not interpret the schemes’ terms or determine their validity.

NPCIL represented that pre-2007 recruits who retired before 2007 were eligible for benefits under the 1990 scheme, while pre-2007 recruits who remained in service beyond 2007 were covered by the 2025 scheme, subject to the relevant conditions.

Accepting those submissions as addressing the petitioners’ grievance, the Court concluded that no further adjudication was necessary.

It did not decide the legality of Rule 1.3 or the 2025 scheme on their merits.

it made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.

No declaration of invalidity or direction to include the petitioners in the 1994 scheme was issued.