2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1063

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
Mohd. Zaffer – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir – Respondent
Original Application No. 1466/2023

Employees recruited via advertisements issued under OPS, with process substantially completed pre-NPS, entitled to OPS despite delayed appointments due to administrative fault; NPS inapplicable retrospectively.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Service Law - Pension Schemes - Old Pension Scheme (OPS) vs New Pension Scheme (NPS) - Recruitment process initiated pursuant to advertisements issued during subsistence of OPS (2005-2009) - Selection process substantially completed before enforcement of NPS via SRO 400 of 2009 w.e.f. 01.01.2010 - Delay in issuance of appointment orders (2010-2011) attributable solely to administrative authorities - Applicants entitled to OPS as service conditions crystallise on date of advertisement and commencement of recruitment - No transitional clause in advertisements indicating applicability of future NPS - Doctrines of legitimate expectation, promissory estoppel and actus curiae neminem gravabit apply - Treating candidates from same advertisements differently (some under OPS, others under NPS) violates Articles 14 and 16 - Administrative delay cannot prejudice candidates' vested rights - NPS corpus with interest to be transferred to GPF accounts - All consequential OPS benefits including pension, family pension, gratuity directed. (Paras 5, 6, 7, 15, 17-21, 42-52)

(B) Constitutional Law - Articles 14 and 16 - Equality in public employment - Candidates selected under same pre-NPS advertisements and process cannot be arbitrarily classified into OPS and NPS based solely on fortuitous date of appointment - Parity must be ensured among similarly situated employees. (Paras 8, 48)

(C) Service Jurisprudence - Pension as substantive condition of service - Rules of game cannot be changed mid-way - Terms applicable on date of advertisement govern unless expressly altered - State cannot take advantage of own delay to impose less beneficial regime. (Paras 18, 43)

Facts of the case:
Applicants responded to advertisements issued in 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2009 for lecturer posts when OPS was operational - Entire selection process up to shortlisting completed before 01.01.2010 - Due to administrative delay by public service commission, appointment orders issued in 2010-2011 subjecting them to NPS - Batchmates appointed earlier under same process granted OPS - Representations rejected compelling OA filing.

Findings of Court:
Applicants deemed appointed under OPS from initial appointment date - NPS corpus including contributions and interest to be transferred to GPF - All retiral benefits under OPS to be extended within three months - Relief confined to applicants.

Issues: Whether applicants whose recruitment commenced under OPS but appointed after NPS cut-off due to administrative delay are entitled to OPS; validity of discriminating between candidates from same selection process; applicability of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel.

Ratio Decidendi: Pension scheme is determined by date of advertisement and initiation of recruitment under OPS, not delayed appointment date - Authorities' delay cannot deny OPS or impose NPS retrospectively - Doctrines of legitimate expectation, promissory estoppel and no prejudice from authority's act apply - Equality mandates parity with batchmates under same process.

Result: Original Application allowed.