CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH Dated this the 8^th day of December, Two Thousand Twenty Five CORAM :

HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER R. Elangovan, S/o Late T. Raghavalu, No.15, Varadapuri Amman Koil Street, Sekkadu, Kamaraja Nagar, Chennai .. Applicant By Advocate Mr. A. Lakshminarasimhan Vs.

Union of India rep by The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Chennai Division, Park Town, Chennai. .. Respondent By Advocate Mr. R. Krishnamurthy

ORAL ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

Aggrieved by the rejection of his request for switch over from New Pension System (NPS) to Old Pension Scheme (OPS) by the impugned order, dated 08.02.2024, the applicant has filed the OA for setting aside the said order and for a direction to bring him in the Old Pension Scheme.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the OA are as follows:

The applicant is a retired Railway employee. He was not selected through any Railway Recruitment Board examination or on Compassionate grounds. His family’s ancestral properties were acquired by the Railways for laying a railway line, and at that time the Board had promised to offer employment to an eligible member of the affected family. Pursuant to this assurance, the applicant submitted an application, but it was not considered. Consequently, the applicant filed an Original Application No.291 of 1997 before this Tribunal and obtained a favourable order on 03.02.1999. The Railway authorities challenged the order before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, but the High Court dismissed their challenge by order, dated 18.06.2003. It is pertinent to note that, instead of promptly issuing the appointment order, the department delayed the matter for one year and ultimately issued the appointment order only on

17.06.2004. The applicant thereafter completed his service successfully and retired. Following his retirement, he submitted a representation on 31.03.2022 requesting that his case be considered under the Old Pension Scheme. As no reply was received, he filed OA No. 667 of 2023, which was disposed of at the admission stage. Subsequently, the respondents rejected his claim by order, dated 08.02.2024. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the applicant has filed the present OA.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant had submitted a representation to the Railway Board immediately after the acquisition of his family property. However, the Railway Board failed to consider the representation, compelling the applicant to approach this Tribunal by filing OA No. 291 of 1997, in which he secured a favourable order dated 03.02.1999. Instead of implementing the order, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 13512 of 1999, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras on 18.06.2003. According to the counsel, the applicant ought to have been appointed at least by 2003 pursuant to the High Court’s order.

4. He further submitted that the respondents carried the matter in further appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (CC) No.

217/2004, which was dismissed on 23.01.2004. The counsel argued that the applicant should have received his appointment either immediately after the Tribunal’s order in 1999 or, at the latest, following the High Court’s decision in 2003. The delay was entirely attributable to the respondents, and the applicant cannot be penalized for their inaction. Finally, he pointed out that the applicant submitted a representation on 31.03.2022 seeking coverage under the Old Pension Scheme, which was well before the relevant cut-off date for exercising such an option. Hence, he prayed that the relief sought in the present OA be granted.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the applicant and relied upon the averments made in the reply statement. He submitted that the applicant was appointed on compassionate grounds as