Denial of Old Pension Scheme Option Due to Missed Deadline is Arbitrary and Discriminatory if Employer Fails Publicity and Grants Benefit to Others: Central Administrative Tribunal - 2025-08-11

CAT Rules in Favour of Medical Attendant, Orders Switch to Old Pension Scheme Citing Discrimination

New Delhi - The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, has declared the rejection of a government employee's request to switch to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) as "highly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India." The Tribunal, presided over by Hon’ble Shri Ajay Pratap Singh (Member Judicial), directed the government to grant the employee the benefits of the OPS, holding that an employee cannot be penalized for a missed deadline when the department failed to provide wide publicity and had allowed a similarly placed colleague to make the switch.

---

Brief Overview of the Case

The applicant, Ms. Renu Joseph, a Lady Medical Attendant with the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS), filed a petition challenging the government's orders dated 20.11.2023 and 14.10.2024. These orders had rejected her application to opt for the OPS over the New Pension Scheme (NPS).

Ms. Joseph was appointed on 09.12.2004, based on a recruitment advertisement from 02.09.2003. A government memorandum (O.M.) dated 03.03.2023 gave a one-time opportunity to employees recruited against vacancies advertised before 22.12.2003 (the cut-off date for NPS) to switch to the OPS. The deadline for exercising this option was 31.08.2023. Ms. Joseph submitted her option on 21.09.2023, missing the deadline, which led to its rejection.

Arguments from Both Sides

Applicant's Arguments (Ms. Renu Joseph):

* Discrimination: The applicant's counsel argued that her batchmate, Ms. Manju Bala, who had also submitted her option after the deadline (on 14.09.2023), was granted the benefit and allowed to switch to the OPS. Denying the same benefit to Ms. Joseph amounted to a clear violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality).

* Lack of Publicity: It was contended that the respondents failed to give wide publicity to the O.M. dated 03.03.2023, as mandated within the memorandum itself. Ms. Joseph was unaware of the deadline and only submitted her option after learning about it from colleagues.

* Continuing Wrong: The issue of pension is a "continuing wrong," and therefore, the strict principles of limitation should not apply to deny her a substantive right.

Respondents' Arguments (Union of India):

* Missed Deadline: The government's counsel argued that the O.M. clearly stipulated 31.08.2023 as the final date for submitting the option. Since the applicant submitted her form on 21.09.2023, the rejection was justified and lawful.

* No Right to Negative Equality: The respondents contended that even if a mistake was made in accepting Ms. Manju Bala's belated application, the applicant cannot claim a "negative equality" right to have the same mistake repeated in her case.

Tribunal's Analysis and Legal Precedents

The Tribunal meticulously analyzed the facts and legal principles, focusing on two critical aspects: the department's failure to publicize the scheme and the discriminatory treatment of the applicant.

The bench cited the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) , which established that in cases of a "continuing wrong," such as pension matters, the rule of limitation can be relaxed.

On the point of discrimination, the Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India & Ors. vs. D.R. Sastri (1966) , where the court had held that if another employee was allowed to exercise an option long after the deadline, there was no ground to discriminate against the petitioner. The Tribunal also referenced the Delhi High Court's judgment in Rajindra Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2017) , which held, "there can also be no discrimination between batchmates."

The Tribunal highlighted a key failure by the respondents:

"The respondents failed to comply para 9 of OM dated 03.03.2023 to give wide publicity to exercise option latest by 31.08.2023 and for fault of respondents, the applicant cannot be deprived of benefits of coverage under CSS (P) Rules, 1972..."

The judgment further noted the admission of discriminatory practice:

"Once similar benefit to exercise option for Old Pension Scheme...extended to Ms. Manju Bala, batchmate of the applicant...and respondents failed to give any material or any special and distinguishing feature for granting said benefits...refusing in case of applicant...is highly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India."

Final Decision and Implications

The Tribunal quashed the impugned order dated 20.11.2023. It directed the respondents to treat Ms. Joseph as a member of the statutory Old Pension Scheme and complete the necessary formalities within ninety days.

This judgment reinforces the principle that administrative deadlines for beneficial schemes must be widely communicated. More importantly, it serves as a strong reminder that government bodies cannot arbitrarily apply rules, granting exceptions to some employees while denying them to others in identical situations. It upholds the constitutional guarantee of equality and ensures that administrative lapses do not unjustly deprive employees of their service rights.