RANJEET SINGH vs NOTHERN RAILWAY on 26 October 2026

O R D E R

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-

1. The present Original Application has been filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:- That, pension case of applicant may kindly be allowed for switching from National Pension System to Old Pension Scheme to be covered under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (now 2021).

2. The applicant, Ranjeet Singh, is aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by respondent No. 3, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantonment, whereby his request for switching his pension from the National Pension System (NPS) to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (now 2021), was rejected (Annexure A-1).

3. The applicant asserts that recruitment to Group-D posts was advertised vide Employment Notice No. 1/03 (Centralised Gr. D), dated 13.06.2003, and that he was selected for appointment to the post of Trackman pursuant to the said recruitment (Annexure A-2). The applicant states that he possesses the original appointment letter in support of his claim.

3. The Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, issued letter No. 7/05/2021-P&PW (B), providing a one-time option to employees appointed against posts or vacancies advertised/notified for recruitment or appointment before the notification of the National Pension System, i.e. 01.01.2004, to opt for coverage under the Old Pension Scheme in accordance with the CCS

by MAMTA WADHWA

3- O.A. No. 772/2025

(Pension) Rules, 1972, now 2021 (Annexure A-3). Thereafter, respondent No. 3 issued a letter dated 28.03.2023 inviting eligible employees to exercise the option to switch from NPS to OPS (Annexure A-4). Claiming eligibility under the aforesaid instructions, the applicant submitted an application bearing No. 4368 dated 11.04.2023 to respondent No. 3, seeking migration from NPS to OPS (Annexure A-5).

4. The applicant states that he subsequently received a communication dated 09.04.2024 informing him that his request could not be accepted because his original personal record was not traceable. According to the applicant, other employees appointed along with him had already been granted the benefit of switching from NPS to OPS. In support of this assertion, he relies upon a list of such employees annexed as Annexure A-6.

5. The applicant further states that he submitted a representation dated 29.05.2024 to respondent No. 2, Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, requesting consideration of his claim. However, according to him, no action was taken on the said representation (Annexure A-7). Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 1238 of 2024. The Tribunal directed the respondents to consider his representation and decide the same within six weeks. The applicant alleges that the directions were not complied with, whereupon he filed Contempt Petition No. 060/00040/2025. It was thereafter that the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 came to be passed rejecting his claim.

6. The applicant also relies upon a letter dated 07.06.2004 issued by respondent No. 7, Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, by MAMTA WADHWA

4- O.A. No. 772/2025

Chandigarh, communicating his selection for the post of Gangman/Trackman against Employment Notice No. 01/2003 (Annexure A-8).

7. The applicant claims that, in view of the recruitment having been advertised before the introduction of NPS, he is entitled to the benefit of switching from NPS to OPS. He contends that the non-availability of his original personal record is attributable to the respondents, as the record was in their custody, and that he should not be made to suffer on that account. He accordingly challenges the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the applicable instructions, and seeks a direction for extending the benefit of OPS to him.

8. The applicant contends that the applicant was selected for the post of Trackman pursuant to Employment Notice No. 01/2003, which was issued before the introduction of the National Pension System with effect from 01.01.2004. Therefore, according to the applicant, his case falls within the category of employees eligible to exercise the one-time option for coverage under the Old Pension Scheme in terms of the Government of India instructions contained in letter No. 7/05/2021- P&PW (B).

9. It is further contended that the respondents themselves invited eligible employees to exercise the option for switching from NPS to OPS vide communication dated 28.03.2023, and that the applicant duly exercised the said option by submitting his application dated 11.04.2023. Having applied within the prescribed framework, the by MAMTA WADHWA

5- O.A. No. 772/2025

applicant asserts that his claim ought to have been considered on its merits in accordance with the applicable instructions.

10. The applicant further submits that the rejection of the applicant's claim on the ground that his original personal record was not traceable is wholly unjustified. It is pleaded that the custody and maintenance of the applicant's service records were the responsibility of the department, and any failure to preserve or trace such records cannot be attributed to the applicant or used to deny him a benefit for which he claims eligibility.

11. The applicant also relies upon the alleged grant of the benefit of switching from NPS to OPS to other employees appointed along with him. It is contended that the respondents have adopted an arbitrary and discriminatory approach by extending the benefit to similarly situated employees while denying the same to the applicant, despite his claim arising from the same recruitment process.

12. The applicant places reliance upon the selection communication dated 07.06.2004 issued by respondent No. 7 in support of the applicant's assertion that he was selected against Employment Notice No. 01/2003. It is contended that the said communication, read with the recruitment notice and the applicant's other available documents, sufficiently supports his claim for consideration under the Old Pension Scheme, notwithstanding the respondents' inability to trace his original personal record.

13. The official respondents No. 1 to 6 have contested the claim of the applicant and have opposed the OA on the ground that his case for by MAMTA WADHWA

6- O.A. No. 772/2025

switching over from the National Pension System (NPS) to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) could not be accepted in the absence of verifiable records establishing that his appointment was made pursuant to the relevant Railway Recruitment Board (RRB) recruitment notification. It is submitted that the applicant was appointed as Trackman vide Assistant Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt. Notice No. 726-E/04/54/Gangman/Ambala/P-3 dated 24.12.2004 and joined service on 16.01.2005, as recorded in his Service Book. Although the appointment was stated to be against Employment Notice CEN No. 01/03 dated 13.06.2003, no corresponding entry establishing his selection through the said recruitment notification was found in his Service Record.

14. The respondents further submit that the applicant exercised the one-time option for switching from NPS to OPS on the ground that the post or vacancy against which he was appointed had been advertised/notified before the introduction of the NPS. Upon scrutiny of the documents submitted by the applicant and the available service records, certain doubts arose regarding the genuineness and verification of his claim. Accordingly, the respondents approached the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Chandigarh, vide letter No. 726- E/16/NPS/Sett./Pt.-X/Med/P-5/UMB dated 17.05.2024, seeking verification of the documents produced by the applicant, including the documents relating to recruitment under CEN No. 01/2003 dated 08.04.2003 and the communication dated 07.06.2004.

15. The respondents further submitted that the Railway Recruitment Board, Chandigarh, vide its communication dated 11.06.2024, informed by MAMTA WADHWA

7- O.A. No. 772/2025

the respondents that, in compliance with Railway Board Letter No. RRCB 20/98 dated 14.10.1998, records older than ten years, for which the prescribed retention period had expired, had been destroyed and that the Board no longer had the relevant recruitment panel available (Annexure R-1). Consequently, the respondents contend that the applicant's claim could not be verified from the records maintained by the Railway Recruitment Board.

16. The respondents further submit that the applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 1238 of 2024, seeking the same substantive relief of switching over from NPS to OPS. The said OA was disposed of vide order dated 12.11.2024, directing the respondents to consider and decide the applicant's representation dated 29.05.2024 within six weeks from the receipt of a copy of the order. In compliance with the said direction, the respondents considered the matter and passed the impugned order dated 13.02.2025, rejecting the applicant's claim on the ground that the available service records did not establish his selection and appointment through RRB Notification CEN No. 01/2003. The respondents state that the applicant was also informed that any new facts or documents produced by him would be examined in accordance with the factual position and the applicable rules and guidelines.

17. With regard to the applicant's reliance upon the selection communication dated 07.06.2004 and other documents, the respondents submit that they had specifically sought verification from the Railway Recruitment Board, Chandigarh. However, in the absence of the relevant recruitment panel and the applicant's original personnel file, by MAMTA WADHWA

8- O.A. No. 772/2025

the claim could not be conclusively established from the official records available with the department. The respondents maintain that the case was placed before the competent authority for consideration on the basis of the documents furnished by the applicant and the records available, but the benefit could not be granted owing to the absence of verifiable records establishing his appointment through the relevant recruitment notification.

18. In response to the applicant's contention that other employees appointed along with him had been permitted to switch from NPS to OPS, the respondents submit that the cases of those employees were processed because their respective Service Records contained entries establishing their appointment through the relevant recruitment notification. In contrast, no such entry was available in the applicant's Service Record. The respondents, therefore, deny that the applicant has been subjected to discriminatory treatment and contend that his case was considered on the basis of the records available in his individual case.

19. The respondents admit that the applicant submitted a representation dated 29.05.2024 seeking switching over from NPS to OPS and state that the same was duly considered and decided vide letter dated 13.02.2025, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure R-3. They also rely upon the earlier communication dated 09.04.2024, issued by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt., conveying the inability to accept the applicant's claim in view of the non-availability of the requisite records. A copy of the said communication has been referred to as Annexure R-2.

by MAMTA WADHWA

9- O.A. No. 772/2025

20. The respondents have denied the grounds raised by the applicant challenging the impugned order as illegal, arbitrary or contrary to the applicable rules and instructions. They contend that the applicant has not established, through the official records available to the department, the requisite factual basis for extending the benefit of OPS to him. They further submit that the applicant's representation was decided pursuant to the directions issued by this Tribunal in the earlier OA and that the impugned order was passed after consideration of the available material.

21. On the aforesaid grounds, the official respondents No. 1 to 6 submit that the applicant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the present OA. They accordingly pray that the OA be dismissed with costs.

22. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents available on record.

23. The controversy in the present case revolves around the applicant's claim for switching over from the National Pension System (NPS) to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) under the applicable instructions issued by the Government of India. The respondents have rejected the applicant's claim, raised through his representation, primarily on the ground that neither any entry in his Service Record nor any document submitted by him establishes that he was selected/appointed through a recruitment notification issued before the cut-off date of 22.12.2003.

24. Upon perusal of the record, we find that the applicant has placed on record Annexure A-2 showing that relevant recruitment by MAMTA WADHWA

10- O.A. No. 772/2025

advertisement was published in the Employment News dated 28.06.2003, vide Employment Notice No. 1/03 (Centralised Group ‘D’), dated 13.06.2003, inviting applications for recruitment to Group ‘D’ posts and specifying 28.07.2003 as the last date for submission of applications. Thus, the recruitment notification in question was issued well before the cut-off date of 22.12.2003. The applicant has further placed on record a communication dated 08.04.2003, whereby he was informed that his name had been placed on the panel of provisionally selected candidates for selection to the post of Gangman, Group ‘D’, against Employment Notice No. 01/2003, as specifically mentioned in the subject of the communication. The Railway Recruitment Board subsequently issued a communication clarifying that the date of the aforesaid letter be read as 08.04.2004 instead of 08.04.2003. However, the subject of the communication continues to refer specifically to the selection for the post of Gangman, Group ‘D’, against Employment Notice No. 01/2003.

25. The aforesaid documents, when read together, establish that Employment Notice No. 01/2003 was issued on 13.06.2003 and that the selection process under the said notification was initiated before the cut- off date of 22.12.2003. The subsequent clarification regarding the date of the communication placing the applicant's name on the panel does not alter the fact that the selection was against Employment Notice No. 01/2003. Significantly, the respondents have not specifically rebutted the contents or the relevance of these documents in their written statement. Rather, their principal objection is founded upon the absence of a corresponding entry in the applicant's Service Record and the non- by MAMTA WADHWA

11- O.A. No. 772/2025

availability of the original recruitment records with the department and the Railway Recruitment Board.

26. We are unable to accept the respondents' contention that the applicant's claim can be rejected solely on account of the non- availability of the original personnel file or the absence of an entry in the Service Record, particularly when the applicant has produced documentary material identifying the relevant recruitment notification and the selection process undertaken pursuant thereto.

27. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the recruitment advertisement dated 13.06.2003 and the communication concerning the applicant's provisional selection against Employment Notice No. 01/2003 assume considerable significance. The respondents have not produced any material to discredit these documents or to establish that the applicant's appointment was against a different recruitment notification. The fact that the Railway Recruitment Board has informed the department that records older than ten years have been destroyed cannot, by itself, nullify the evidentiary value of the documents already produced by the applicant to raise a legal claim. Accordingly, on the basis of the material available on record, we find sufficient grounds, in the absence of any contrary material, to infer that the applicant's claim arises out of the recruitment process initiated under Employment Notice No. 01/2003, issued prior to 22.12.2003.

28. The relevant Office Memorandum dated 03.03.2023 provides for a one-time option in respect of Central Government civil employees who were recruited against posts or vacancies advertised/notified for recruitment on or before 22.12.2003, but were covered under the by MAMTA WADHWA

12- O.A. No. 772/2025

National Pension System on joining service on or after 01.01.2004, to be covered under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, now the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. The object of the said instructions is to extend the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme to employees, whose recruitment was against posts or vacancies advertised/notified before the introduction of the National Pension System, notwithstanding that they joined service subsequently and were consequently brought under NPS.

29. Applying the aforesaid instructions to the facts of the present case, we find that the applicant's appointment was made on 24.12.2004 and he joined service on 16.01.2005, whereas the recruitment notification relied upon by him was issued on 13.06.2003. Thus, the dates of appointment and joining, falling after the introduction of NPS, do not by themselves disentitle the applicant from consideration under the one-time option scheme. The relevant consideration is whether he was recruited against a post or vacancy advertised/notified on or before 22.12.2003. For the reasons discussed above, the documents placed on record support the applicant's claim in this regard.

30. We, therefore, hold that the rejection of the applicant's claim solely on the ground of non-availability of the original personnel file and the absence of a corresponding entry in his Service Record is not sustainable in the facts of the present case. The impugned order dated 13.02.2025, to the extent that it rejects the applicant's claim without giving due consideration to the documentary evidence produced by him regarding Employment Notice No. 01/2003, is liable to be set aside.

31. Accordingly, the OA is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.02.2025 (Annexure A-1) is set aside. The respondents are directed to by MAMTA WADHWA

13- O.A. No. 772/2025

extend to the applicant the benefit of the one-time option for coverage under the Old Pension Scheme in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 03.03.2023 and the applicable CCS (Pension) Rules, subject to completion of the requisite formalities prescribed under the said instructions. The necessary consequential action shall be taken within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

(ANJALI BHAWRA)

(SURESH KUMAR BATRA) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Dated: 26.10.2026

‘mw’

by MAMTA WADHWA