Relief concerning transition from New Pension Scheme to Old Pension Scheme denied following precedent.

Six applicants, employed in various capacities (Assistant Accounts Officer, Postal Assistant, etc.) within the Department of Posts, Karnataka Circle, filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

The applicants sought to quash multiple orders passed by the Superintendent of Post Offices (Respondent No. 4) between 2022 and 2024, which denied their requests to transition from the New Pension Scheme (NPS) to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS)

The procedural history indicates that the applicants challenged these administrative rejections to obtain a consequential direction for the extension of OPS benefits

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the coverage of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) in place of the New Pension Scheme (NPS)

2. Whether the impugned orders passed by Respondent No. 4, rejecting the shift to OPS, are legally sustainable in light of prior judicial precedents

The court primarily applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding the jurisdiction to review grievances of central government employees

The Tribunal relied on the principle of judicial consistency and stare decisis, specifically referencing its own decision pronounced on the same day in Smt. Kanthamani T. and another vs. Union of India and others (OA No. 297/2025), which addressed identical legal questions regarding the applicability of pension schemes

The Tribunal observed that the legal and factual scenario presented by the six applicants was identical to the matters adjudicated in Smt. Kanthamani T. vs. Union of India

Rather than re-evaluating the merits independently, the Bench determined that the issue was "squarely covered" by the reasoning adopted in the aforementioned parallel case decided on the same date

By applying the findings of OA No. 297/2025—which evidently found no merit in the demand for a shift from NPS to OPS for similarly situated employees—the Tribunal concluded that the applicants in the current matter were likewise not entitled to the reliefs sought

Consequently, the Original Application (OA) was dismissed in similar terms to OA No. 297/2025. All pending Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) were disposed of, and no order as to costs was made