• Whether I will be covered under old pension scheme in view of vacancy arose before 1.1.2004?

Sir /,I am seeking a legal opinion to know whether my pension will be covered old pension scheme under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 notionally. I am currently working as Associate Professor at JIPMER Pondicherry. The post of lecturer fell vacant because one of the faculty, Dr. S. Ramasamy had relived from the service on 14.11.2003 during JIPMER was under the administrative control of DGHS, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW). At the time of relieving from the service, he was covered under old pension scheme envisaged under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. In order to fill the vacancy that arose on 15.11.2003, JIPMER requested the Ministry of Health (MoHFW) to fill the vacant post. Accordingly, the vacancy of the post was advertised as Lecturer in Pharmacology by UPSC after a gap of almost 2 years, i.e., on 15.07.2005 (file no 2005/15/07 F.1/290/2004 R.I).After I had applied for the post of lecturer on 2005, I was called to appear for the interview for nearly a gap of 2 years for the above post (Annex-3). I was selected for the post of lecturer in pharmacology, and the same was intimated to me by the UPSC on 12.3.2007. Subsequently, I was given the offer of appointment as a lecturer in Pharmacology by MoHFW on 31.8.2007 and covered by contributory pension under the New Pension scheme, 2004.
From the above, it was very evident that JIPMER and MoHFW had taken 4 years to fill the vacant post arised on 15.07.2003. The reason for such undue delay is purely administrative nature since JIPMER is dependent on DGHS, MoHFW to fill the vacant post, which had taken many years to fill the vacant post. However, JIPMER became an autonomous institution of national importance (INI) under an act of parliament which gave power to JIPMER to fill the post without dependent on MoHFW. After 2008, JIPMER started filling any vacant posts rapidly within a few months. In my case, If the post of lecturer filled in time on 2003, I would have been covered under OPS.
In this regard, I wish to cite the Hon’ble CAT, Ernakulam bench, which passed the judgment dated [deleted] with reference to O.A 180/00020/2015, has mentioned that the petitioner should be covered old pension scheme based on the vacancy that arose before 2004 although the petitioner has joined the service after 2004. However, the Central Government has taken a stay in kerala High court to CAT order and the case is pending and judgemtent yet to be pronounced to the best of my knowledge (Need to be verified). However, several court judgements are citing the above CAT judgement and pass the order in favour of the petitioner. But some courts reject the petitioners' request on the basis of vacancy arose before 2003. Since I am approaching late to the court, will the judge call me “Fence sitters” and reject my case. I have submitted an representation to my insitiution one month before but no reply so far. Please give your opinion on my chance get direction from the court to cover my pension under the OPS. THANKS
Asked 3 months ago in Labour

Ask a question and receive multiple answers in one hour.

Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.

5 Answers

It is clear from the fact that you have not even applied for the post when the old pension scheme was existing.

You applied for the post when the new pension scheme was implemented and got appointed  two years after that.

You cannot claim it as a right just because you have filled up the post that was vacant.

The judgment what you have read and understood is your misinterpretation.

You have not applied for the post when it became vacant, in fact the organisation did not invite applications from the eligible candidates before 2005, there is no question of vacancy at that time when old pension scheme was subsisting, as incorrectly understood by you. 

Prima facie it appears that you do not have a case at all, hence in my opinion you may not be eligible for the desired privilege. 

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
81456 Answers
1826 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Order of CAT has been stayed by HC and has not become final .as such until HC decides issue you would not be granted benefit of old pension scheme 

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
91274 Answers
6807 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

If even after representation no response is received you can file writ petition in the said matter 

Prashant Nayak
Advocate, Mumbai
29605 Answers
121 Consultations

4.1 on 5.0

It is true that the vacancy arose in 2003, however, JIPMER had to consult union of india to fill up the vacancy and notification to recruit released on 2005 and atlast selected during 2007. The CAT order challenged in kerala HC has not been disposed off as per the status which i checked online. You should project solid grounds that you are entitled to old pension norms. Still there is no harm in trying filing a case.


Rajaganapathy Ganesan
Advocate, Chennai
2111 Answers
8 Consultations

4.9 on 5.0

Dear client,  

Based on the information provided, it seems that your case is similar to the case cited by you from the Hon'ble CAT, Ernakulam bench. However, the outcome of your case will depend on various factors, including the specific provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and the New Pension Scheme, 2004, the terms and conditions of your appointment as a lecturer, and the relevant court precedents.

If you decide to approach the court, the judge will not call you a "fence sitter" simply because you have approached the court late. However, it is important to note that delay in approaching the court may affect your case, and the judge may consider various factors such as the reasons for the delay, the prejudice caused to the other party, and the strength of your case on merits.

In order to improve your chances of success, you may need to gather relevant documents and evidence to support your case, including your appointment letter, the advertisement for the vacant post, the UPSC selection letter, and any other relevant correspondence. You may also need to consult with a lawyer who specializes in pension and employment law to understand the legal issues involved and to prepare a strong case.

Finally, it is important to note that the outcome of your case cannot be predicted with certainty, and there is always a risk of adverse outcome or unfavorable ruling. Therefore, you should weigh the potential benefits and risks of pursuing your case in court and make an informed decision based on your individual circumstances.




Anik Miu
Advocate, Bangalore
6694 Answers
74 Consultations

4.9 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
  Ask a lawyer