The Calcutta High Court has directed authorities to reconsider a government employee's Old Pension Scheme claim, ruling that failure to disclose a prior job application or obtain technical resignation cannot by itself defeat eligibility under the 2023 pension option. According to reports from Mint, a division bench of Justices Amrita Sinha and Biswaroop Chowdhury set aside the rejection of the employee's claim and the Central Administrative Tribunal's order upholding it in the case of Shri Erotu Kurma Rao vs Union of India & Others. The authorities have been directed to reconsider his claim under a 2023 government Office Memorandum without rejecting it merely because he did not obtain or apply for a 'technical resignation'. The court emphasized that an employee cannot be expected to know every service rule, particularly when the dispute arose after the government's March 3, 2023 order gave eligible Central government employees a one-time chance to switch to the Old Pension Scheme if their jobs were advertised before December 22, 2003.
The employee had been selected as a lower-grade clerk in 2007 after being selected through a separate recruitment process, moving from a peon's post where he resigned on 14 March 2007. As reported by Mint, his resignation letter disclosed that he had been selected for the other post and intended to join it. His resignation was accepted and he was relieved on 23 March 2007, joining as a lower-grade clerk on 27 March 2007. However, his appointment to the new post was covered by the New Pension Scheme, 2004, which was later replaced by the Old Pension Scheme. The case details show he had applied for the peon post in 2002 and was appointed in September 2006, while he had also applied separately for a lower-grade clerk's post in 2005.
The High Court took a broader view of the procedural requirements, noting that an unemployed person can apply for several government jobs because there is no certainty that any particular application will result in selection. According to Mint, the court emphasized that a person who gets one job cannot necessarily be expected to know whether another application will eventually result in an appointment. The court also found it difficult to use the disclosure requirement in the 2016 Office Memorandum dealing with technical resignation to impose disadvantage on the employee for events that took place in 2006-07, as the memorandum came much later than the actual job transition. The court's reasoning highlights that procedural requirements should not become a means of denying substantive benefits under welfare schemes.
The ruling does not mean that every government employee who changed jobs before 2004 or 2006 will automatically get OPS benefits. As reported by Mint, the employee's eligibility under the March 2023 Office Memorandum still has to be examined. The court directed the competent authority to reconsider the employee's claim under the March 2023 OM and, if he is otherwise eligible, provide the consequential benefits. The authority was directed to communicate a reasoned decision within six weeks of receiving the judgment. For government employees who moved between posts before the New Pension System took effect, the ruling highlights that a procedural issue surrounding the manner in which an employee moved from one government post to another cannot automatically override eligibility under a later beneficial pension measure.
The bench stressed that the March 2023 OM was a welfare measure and should not be interpreted through an excessively narrow or technical approach. According to Mint, it relied on earlier judicial principles that procedural requirements should not become a means of denying substantive benefits under welfare schemes. The ruling provides new hope to government employees who faced procedural lapses while transitioning between posts, as it clarifies that technical mistakes alone should not take away pension benefits under the Old Pension Scheme framework.
