Recruitment process initiated prior to New Pension Scheme implementation entitles appointees to Old Pension Scheme benefits.

The thirteen applicants were appointed as "Drivers" in the Respondent Department in the year 2010

The recruitment process originated from an advertisement notice issued in 2008, and the selection process commenced prior to the implementation of the New Pension Scheme (NPS) on January 1, 2010

The applicants contended that the delay in their actual appointment was purely administrative and beyond their control

Consequently, they filed this application seeking a direction to the respondents to treat them as covered under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) and to transfer their contributions from the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA) to the General Provident Fund (GPF)

1. Whether employees whose recruitment process was initiated prior to the implementation of the New Pension Scheme (NPS) but who were appointed after its commencement are entitled to the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS)

2. Whether administrative delays in the appointment process can be used to justify the denial of OPS benefits to candidates who applied under a pre-NPS advertisement

The Tribunal relied on the principle that administrative delays in the selection process should not penalize employees by depriving them of pensionary benefits applicable at the time the recruitment process began

It specifically cited the precedents of Mohd. Zaffer and Ors. v. UT of J&K (OA 1466/2023) and Dr. Vijay Kumar Shivgotra v. University of Jammu (TA 23/2025)

Furthermore, it applied the legal position established by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Naveen Kumar Jha v. Union of India (2012), Shyam Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2019), and related cases, as well as the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2020), all of which held that employees applied before the NPS implementation but appointed after are entitled to OPS

The Tribunal observed that the applicants’ selection process was initiated via a 2008 advertisement, well before the January 1, 2010, cutoff for the NPS

The applicants argued that they should not be penalized for administrative delays that occurred within the Department

The Tribunal analyzed the prayer in the context of established judicial scrutiny, noting that various High Courts and Tribunals have consistently held that the date of the recruitment notification—rather than the date of the formal appointment letter—is the determining factor when the delay is not attributable to the candidate

By directing the respondents to evaluate the applicants’ case against these specific precedents, the Tribunal linked the legal requirement of "parity" for "similarly situated" employees to the facts of the present recruitment timeline

The respondents are ordered to pass a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment

The holding specifies that if the applicants are found to be similarly situated to the petitioners in the cited precedents (notably Mohd. Zaffer and Naveen Kumar Jha), the respondents must extend the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme to them

No costs were awarded