2. Facts in brief as narrated by the applicants are that they were initially recruited as Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant upon being successful in the examination conducted pursuant to notification dated 01.03.2004. As on the date of their appointment, New Pension Scheme had come into effect and they were admitted to the said scheme. OM dated 17.02.2020 was issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare (DOP&PW) for coverage under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, in place of National Pension System to those Central Government employees whose selection for appointment was finalized before 01.01.2004 but who joined government service on or after 01.01.2004. Subsequently, OM dated 03.03.2023 was issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (DOP&PW), giving one time option to Central Government civil employees who have been appointed against a post or vacancy which was advertised/notified for recruitment/appointment prior to the date of notification for National Pension System i.e., 22.12.2003 and is covered under the National Pension System on joining service on or after 01.01.2004. The applicants submitted their representations claiming that they were appointed against 2002 vacancies and are, therefore, eligible to be covered under the Old Pension Scheme from the existing New Pension Scheme. In the light of this OM dated 03.03.2023, respondents have rejected the claim of the applicants. Hence, this OA.

3. Learned counsel Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar representing the applicants submitted that the correspondence dated 26.02.2004 (Annexure A14) specifically evinces that the vacancy year pertains to 2002 to which the applicants were recruited pursuant to the recruitment notification published in Samyukta Karnataka newspaper dated 01.03.2004. This is further substantiated by the appointment order issued to the applicants vide memo dated 24.11.2004, wherein it is mentioned that the candidates were selected for appointment to the cadre of T/S Postal Assistants in Channapatna Division for the recruitment year 2002, thus, the applicants’ claim ought to have been considered favourably. However, the impugned order has been issued with a narrow interpretation of the OM dated 03.03.2023. Reliance is placed on the following decisions of this Tribunal: 1) Shri Lokender Kumar Sharma and Ors. vs. The Secretary, Department of Defence Production and Ors.; 2) Mangal Singh and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.

4. Per contra, learned counsel Shri S. Sugumaran representing the respondents placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Union of India and Ors. vs. Sheeba B. and Anr., supported the impugned order. Learned counsel submitted that the correspondence, Circle’s DO letter dated 26.02.2004 referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant, pertains solely to the administrative clearance of vacancies and does not override the statutory provisions outlined in the OMs dated 17.02.2020 and 03.03.2023. Referring to the order passed by this Bench in Smt. Lata S. Katti vs. Union of India and Ors., learned counsel contended that this Tribunal following the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in B. Sheeba and Anr., has dismissed the OA, hence, the present OA deserves to be dismissed as the applicants' appointments were made pursuant to the notification/advertisement issued and results declared after 01.01.2004.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

6. The sole point that arises for our consideration is, whether the applicants are entitled for coverage under the Old Pension Scheme in place of New Pension Scheme considering their appointment against the specific vacancy year 2002?

7. The factual aspects are not in dispute. The applicants were appointed on 05.08.2004 and 10.12.2004, respectively in response to the advertisement/notification published in newspaper by the Karnata