Case Background
The petitioner had been working as a Commission Vendor in the East Central Railways, Danapur since 1982. He was on a Group ‘D’ post and his engagement was temporary, though he was a registered vendor.
Later, the Railways took a policy decision to absorb such Commission Vendors, who were working regularly for a long time, into regular Group ‘D’ posts. For this, a screening was held and the petitioner’s medical examination was conducted. He was found medically fit as per a medical certificate dated 16.07.1993.
On 15.06.1995, a list of 485 Commission Vendors was prepared for absorption on various Group ‘D’ posts. The letter mentioned that 182 vendors had already been absorbed and the next 100, as per seniority, would be absorbed immediately as per orders of the competent authority. For this purpose, it was necessary to determine their SC/ST/OBC or UR status. The petitioner’s name appeared at serial number 448 in this list.
On 22.06.1995, Eastern Railway published a list of 72 Commission Vendors for absorption and appointment. In this list, the petitioner’s name appeared at serial number 55. However, the services of these 72 persons were not regularised at that time. They continued to work on temporary Group ‘D’ posts.
The petitioner’s services were finally regularised later. He was appointed on the post of Khalasi (Mechanical Carriage and Wagon) by office order dated 26.03.2004 in Danapur Division.
In the meantime, the pension regime for Central Government employees changed. The National Pension System (New Pension Scheme) was notified on 22.12.2003 and came into effect from 01.01.2004. Employees appointed up to 31.12.2003 remained under the Old Pension Scheme, while those appointed on or after 01.01.2004 were covered by NPS.
The petitioner was treated as covered under the New Pension Scheme because his appointment as Khalasi was with effect from 08.04.2004. He eventually retired on 31.08.2020 under this non-pensionable/NPS regime.
What the Court Examined and Decided
In February 2020, the Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare, Government of India, issued a circular dated 17.02.2020. This circular dealt with employees whose appointments were delayed due to administrative reasons even though recruitment processes had been completed before the cut-off date for the New Pension System.
The circular stated that in all cases where recruitment results were declared before 01.01.2004 against vacancies occurring on or before 31.12.2003, the successful candidates would be eligible for coverage under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, i.e., the Old Pension Scheme. Such employees, who had been brought under NPS on joining service on or after 01.01.2004, were to be given a one-time option to switch to the Old Pension Scheme, with the option to be exercised by 31.05.2020.
The East Central Railway adopted this circular by its own circular dated 09.04.2020. It extended a one-time option to NPS staff whose final results had been issued before 31.12.2003 for appointments against vacancies occurring on or before 01.01.2004, but who had joined on or after 01.01.2004. They could opt for the Old Pension Scheme under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, by 31.05.2020.
Relying on these circulars, the petitioner submitted an application on 29.05.2020 seeking to switch from NPS to the Old Pension Scheme (referred to as RBE No. 28/2020). However, the Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Danapur, rejected his claim by letter dated 16.06.2021.
The rejection letter stated that the petitioner had been working only as a temporary Commission Vendor in the catering department before 01.01.2004 and his services were regularised as Khalasi (Mechanical Carriage and Wagon) by order dated 26.03.2004. Therefore, his case was not covered by Railway Board Circular No. 28/2020 which dealt with recruitment-based appointments.
The petitioner challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in OA No. 050/00516/2021. He sought a direction to grant him the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, corresponding to the Railway Pension Rules, 1993, in terms of the 17.02.2020 circular. The Tribunal dismissed his application by judgment dated 03.02.2025.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before the Patna High Court, challenging the CAT order.
Before the Tribunal, the Railways had filed a written statement. They pointed out that the petitioner, while working as a temporary Commission Vendor, was appointed as Khalasi/C&W, Patna, vide order dated 25.03.2004, effective from 08.04.2004. Hence, he was treated under the Non-Pensionable Scheme and retired on 31.08.2020.
The Railways also explained that the screening of Commission Vendors in 1995 only resulted in a panel, and empanelled candidates were to be absorbed subject to availability of vacancies. In the petitioner’s case, vacancies arose only in 2004, leading to his regularisation by office order dated 26.03.2004. Therefore, he came into regular service only after the New Pension Scheme started.
In reply to a miscellaneous application, the Railways further clarified that the petitioner was not appointed through any general selection process conducted against an advertisement or recruitment notification. For inclusion under the Old Pension Rules, an employee must have been appointed against a post or vacancy advertised or notified before 22.12.2003 and subsequently covered under NPS only because joining had happened after 01.01.2004.
In the High Court, counsel for the petitioner argued that the process of his absorption, along with others, had started well before the cut-off date of 31.12.2003. Because the delay in his regularisation was due to administrative reasons and not his fault, he should not be deprived of the Old Pension Scheme benefits, particularly in view of the 17.02.2020 circular and the East Central Railway circular dated 09.04.2020.
The petitioner’s counsel also relied on a 2013 judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 779 of 2012 (Manish Kumar and Others vs. Union of India and Others). In that case, the Tribunal had held that where a select list expires without any fault of the candidates, and the candidates are otherwise suitable, expiry of the select list should not prevent their appointment.
On the other hand, the respondents’ counsel stressed that the petitioner’s absorption in regular service occurred only through the office order dated 25.03.2004, and his appointment as Khalasi took effect from 08.04.2004. He was not appointed through any recruitment advertisement or notification issued prior to 22.12.2003. He had only been working on a temporary basis as Commission Vendor earlier. Screening of vendors in 1995 was for absorption but actual absorption was to be made as and when vacancies arose. For him, those vacancies came only in 2004, after the New Pension Scheme had commenced.
The Patna High Court examined both the 17.02.2020 circular of the Department of Pension & PW and the 09.04.2020 circular of East Central Railway in detail. The Court noted that these circulars aimed to give relief to those government servants who had been declared successful for recruitment before 01.01.2004, against vacancies that had arisen before 01.01.2004, but who actually joined service on or after 01.01.2004 and were placed under NPS.
Crucially, clause 4 of the 17.02.2020 circular limited the benefit. It said that only such government servants who were declared successful for recruitment before 01.01.2004 against vacancies pertaining to the period before that date would get the option. At the same time, the clause listed certain categories who would not be entitled to the option, even if they joined after 01.01.2004.
The exclusion clause covered, among others, government servants whose names were included in a panel of selected candidates before 01.01.2004 for recruitment against vacancies occurring on or after 01.01.2004 and who were recruited on or after that date. It also excluded those selected on the basis of advertisement or examination held before 01.01.2004 where the recruitment results were declared on or after 01.01.2004.
After going through these provisions, the Court returned to the petitioner’s factual situation. It held that the petitioner was not appointed against any post which had been advertised or notified for recruitment before 22.12.2003. Instead, he had been a Commission Vendor since 1982. A list of 485 vendors was prepared for absorption under a policy decision, and they were to be absorbed in order of seniority as and when vacancies arose.
For the petitioner, such vacancy arose only in 2004. He was then regularised as Khalasi on a Group ‘D’ post by office order dated 26.03.2004 with effect from 08.04.2004. Therefore, his actual date of appointment was clearly after 31.12.2003.
The Court concluded that his case fell within the exclusion clause of the 17.02.2020 circular. Because of this, he could not claim the option to shift to the Old Pension Scheme. The Court held that there was “no iota of doubt” that, having been appointed on 26.03.2004 with effect from 08.04.2004, he must remain under the New Pension Scheme.
The Court also considered the Tribunal’s 2013 decision in Manish Kumar and Others, cited by the petitioner’s counsel. It held that this earlier case did not apply to the present dispute. The issues in the two matters were “absolutely different and distinguishable”, so that judgment could not assist the petitioner.
In the end, the Patna High Court agreed with the Central Administrative Tribunal’s view and found no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner’s claim for coverage under the Old Pension Scheme failed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for long-serving casual or temporary workers, especially in the Railways, who are later absorbed into regular posts. Many such workers hope that their long earlier service, or old screening and panels, will entitle them to the Old Pension Scheme.
The Patna High Court makes it clear that, under the 17.02.2020 and 09.04.2020 circulars, the key test is the nature of appointment and the date of actual regular appointment against a notified vacancy. Simply being in a panel or list, or working temporarily for many years, is not enough.
Workers absorbed after 01.01.2004, especially where there was no earlier recruitment advertisement and recruitment result declared before 01.01.2004, cannot use these circulars to move from NPS to the Old Pension Scheme.
This decision therefore draws a clear line for similar claims. It also shows that courts will strictly apply the exclusion clauses in the government’s pension option circular, even when an employee has served for decades in a temporary capacity.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether a railway employee, originally a long-serving Commission Vendor and regularised as Khalasi in 2004, was entitled to switch from the New Pension Scheme to the Old Pension Scheme under the 17.02.2020 and 09.04.2020 circulars.
Answer: No. The Court held that since his regular appointment as Khalasi was after 31.12.2003 and not against a recruitment advertisement or result declared before 01.01.2004, his case fell within the exclusion clause of the circular. He remained governed by the New Pension Scheme. - Issue: Whether the earlier CAT decision in Manish Kumar and Others, dealing with expiry of select lists, could support the petitioner’s claim to old pension benefits.
Answer: No. The Court held that the issues in that case were different and distinguishable, and therefore that decision was not applicable to the petitioner’s pension claim.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in OA No. 779 of 2012, Manish Kumar and Others vs. Union of India and Others, was referred to by the petitioner. The High Court, however, found it inapplicable to the present case.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6981 of 2025
Case Title: Ranvijay Prasad Singh vs. Union of India & Others
Citation: 2026 (3) PLJR 637
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Date of Judgment: 14.05.2026
Advocates: Mr. Nawnit Kumar Tiwary, Advocate and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. Jawed Gaffar Khan, Advocate for the Union of India
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging dismissal of Original Application No. 050/00516/2021 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, regarding claim for Old Pension Scheme coverage.
Link to Judgment: Full text of Patna High Court judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
