Selection process initiated before New Pension Scheme notification entitles employees to Old Pension Scheme benefits.

The applicants, Richa and Rajni Bala, were appointed as Lecturers in Physics and Political Science, respectively, vide Government Orders dated April 21, 2010

Their recruitment process, including advertisements, scrutiny, and interviews, was conducted by the J&K Public Service Commission (PSC) prior to the implementation of SRO 400 of 2009 (dated December 24, 2009), which introduced the New Pension Scheme (NPS)

The applicants alleged that although the selection process commenced during the subsistence of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), their appointment orders were delayed by the authorities, resulting in their illegal classification under the NPS

They sought a direction to be treated under the OPS and the transfer of their NPS corpus to General Provident Fund (GPF) accounts

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) on the ground that the recruitment process was initiated and conducted prior to the notification of the New Pension Scheme (NPS).

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to parity with the judgment passed by the Tribunal in Mohd. Zaffer and Ors. Vs. UT of J&K (OA No. 1466/2023).

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding the maintainability of applications before the Tribunal

Rule 4(5) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, to permit the applicants to pursue the matter collectively

The principle established in Mohd. Zaffer and Ors. Vs. UT of J&K (OA No. 1466/2023), which held that employees whose selection process was finalized or commenced before the cut-off date of the New Pension Scheme (SRO 400 of 2009) should be governed by the Old Pension Scheme

The Tribunal focused on the timeline of the recruitment process relative to the notification of SRO 400 of 2009.

The applicants argued that the administrative delay in issuing appointment orders—despite the selection process occurring under the OPS regime—should not prejudice their right to pensionary benefits

The Tribunal noted the applicants' contention that their case was "squarely covered" by the decision in Mohd. Zaffer

Given the limited prayer to match the benefits of the cited precedent and the respondents' concession that appropriate orders could be passed, the Tribunal opted not to delve into the merits.

Instead, it applied the principle of administrative consistency, directing the respondents to evaluate the applicants' similarity to the beneficiaries in the Mohd. Zaffer case

It directed the respondents to consider the applicants' case for extension of OPS benefits in light of the judgment in Mohd. Zaffer and Ors. Vs. UT of J&K

The respondents were ordered to pass a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks; if the applicants are found to be similarly situated to the parties in the cited case, the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme must be extended to them within that timeframe

No costs were awarded