Vacancy Year Relevancy Denied: NPS Applies if Recruitment Notification is Issued Post-December 2003

The applicants were recruited as Postal/Sorting Assistants following a recruitment notification published in the Samyukta Karnataka newspaper on 01.03.2004

Although they were appointed against vacancies belonging to the year 2002, they joined service in August and December 2004, respectively.

Consequently, they were placed under the National Pension System (NPS), which came into effect on 01.01.2004.

The applicants sought to be covered under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, citing Office Memoranda (OM) dated 17.02.2020 and 03.03.2023, which allowed a one-time option for employees appointed against vacancies advertised/notified prior to 22.12.2003.

The respondents rejected their claims because the actual notification for their recruitment was issued after the cut-off date.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to coverage under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) rather than the New Pension Scheme (NPS) solely because they were appointed against the vacancy year 2002, despite the recruitment notification being issued after 22.12.2003?

Para 4 of Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare (DOP&PW) OM dated 03.03.2023, which restricts the one-time option for OPS to those appointed against posts/vacancies advertised or notified for recruitment prior to 22.12.2003.

The precedent set by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Union of India v. Sheeba B. [OP (CAT) No. 304/2016], which held that if the recruitment notification and results were declared after 01.01.2004, the OM does not apply.

The Bangalore Bench's own precedent in Laxman M. Naik v. Union of India [OA No. 536/2023], establishing that the vacancy year is irrelevant if the recruitment process commenced after the cut-off date.

The Tribunal examined the timeline of the recruitment process and determined that while the vacancies pertained to the year 2002, the legal trigger for eligibility under the OPS (as per the 03.03.2023 OM) is the date of the recruitment notification.

The applicants' recruitment was notified on 01.03.2004, which is after the mandatory cut-off date of 22.12.2003 mentioned in the OM.

The Tribunal rejected the applicants' reliance on the "vacancy year" as a qualifying factor, noting that administrative clearance of vacancies does not override the statutory cut-off dates outlined in the OMs.

It distinguished the applicants' cited cases (Shri Lokender Kumar Sharma and Mangal Singh) by noting that those decisions did not align with the specific cut-off date requirements established by the High Court of Kerala in Sheeba B., which this Bench chose to follow.

The Tribunal found no merit in the application and upheld the respondents' rejection order. The Original Application was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.