Ranvijay Prasad SinghversusThe Union of India

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6981 of 2025
     ======================================================
     Ranvijay Prasad Singh, Male, S/o Late Chandrika Prasad Singh, Resident of
     Indra Nagar Road No.-09 (Near Nath Utsav Hall, Bigrahpur, Patna, District-
     Patna-800001), earlier working on the post of Technician (Fitter)-1, Carriage
     and Wagon Dept., ECR-Danapur.
                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                        Versus
1.   The Union of India through the Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi.
2.   The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur.
3.   The Chief Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Hajipur.
4.   The Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), East Central Railway,
     Danapur.
5.   The Senior Divisional Manager (Commercial), Danapur.
6.   The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Danapur.
                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance:
     For the Petitioner/s   :       Mr. Nawnit Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
                                    Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
     For the U.O.I.         :       Mr. Jawed Gaffar Khan, Advocate
     ======================================================
       CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
                                               and
                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
                                  CAV JUDGMENT
          (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)

      Date: 14-05-2026
              The present writ petition has been filed against the

     judgment dated 03.02.2025 passed by the learned Central

     Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred

     to as the ‘Ld. CAT’) in OA No. 050/00516/2021 whereby and

     whereunder the original application filed by the petitioner herein

     has been dismissed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6981 of 2025 dt.14-05-2026
                                           2/13




        2.      The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner are

        that the petitioner was working on Group ‘D’ post as Commission

        Vendor in the East Central Railways, Danapur since the year 1982

        on temporary basis, being a registered vendor. Thereafter, a policy

        decision was taken by the Railways to absorb the services of such

        Commission Vendors who were discharging their services

        regularly, whereafter screening had taken place and during the

        course thereof, medical examination of the petitioner was also

        conducted and he was found medically fit as is apparent from the

        medical certificate dt. 16.7.1993. Finally, a list of 485 Commission

        Vendors was prepared for absorption on various Group ‘D’ posts

        vide letter dated 15.06.1995 wherein it was mentioned that 182

        Commission Vendors have already been absorbed in various

        Group ‘D’ posts and the next 100, as per seniority will be

        absorbed immediately as per orders of the competent authority for

        which purpose it is essential to determine the SC/ST/OBC or UR

        status of these vendors plus those already absorbed. The name of

        the petitioner appears at serial No.448 in the said list.

        3.      In view of the aforesaid letter dated 15.06.1995, the Eastern

        Railway published a list of 72 Commission Vendors vide letter

        dated 22.06.1995 for the purposes of absorption and appointment

        and the name of the petitioner figures at serial No.55 of the said
Patna High Court CWJC No.6981 of 2025 dt.14-05-2026
                                           3/13




        list. Nonetheless, the services of the said 72 persons could not be

        regularized and they continued to work on temporary post of

        Group ‘D’, however the services of the petitioner was

        subsequently regularized on the post of Khalasi (Mechanical

        Carriage and Wagon) vide letter dated 26.03.2004.

        4.      In the meantime, the Department of Pension & PW vide

        circular dated 17.02.2020 invited options from eligible candidates

        for coverage under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,

        1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 1972’) and for opting

        the Old Pension Scheme in place of the New Pension Scheme, in

        such cases as have been postulated in Clause 4 of the said

        Circular, which is reproduced herein below:-

                “4. The matter has been examined in consultation with the
                Department       of   Personnel       &   Training,   Department   of
                Expenditure and Department of Legal Affairs in the light of the
                various representations/references and decisions of the Courts
                in this regard. It has been decided that in all cases where the
                results for recruitment were declared before 01.01.2004 against
                vacancies occurring on or before 31.12.2003, the candidates
                declared successful for recruitment shall be eligible for
                coverage under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Accordingly,
                such Government servants who were declared successful for
                recruitment in the results declared on or before 31.12.2003
                against vacancies occurring before 01.01.2004 and are covered
                under the National Pensions System on joining service on or
                after 01.01.2004, may be given a one time option to be covered
Patna High Court CWJC No.6981 of 2025 dt.14-05-2026
                                           4/13




                under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. This option may be
                exercised by the concerned Govt. servants latest by 31.5.2020.”

        5.      The East Central Railway vide Circular dated 09.04.2020

        had also adopted the aforesaid Office Order dated 17.02.2020 and

        had given one time option to the New Pension System (NPS)

        Staff, whose final results had been issued prior to 31.12.2003, for

        appointment against the vacancies occurring on or before

        01.01.2004, but had joined on or after 01.01.2004, for opting the

        benefit of Old Pension Scheme under the Railway Service

        (Pension) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules,

        1993’). The time granted to the concerned eligible government

        servants for exercising such option was latest by 31.05.2020. The

        petitioner is stated to have filed an application on 29.05.2020 for

        switching over from the New Pension Scheme to Old Pension

        Scheme in terms of RBE No. 28/2020, however the claim of the

        petitioner was rejected vide letter dated 16.06.2021, issued by the

        Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Danapur inter

        alia stating therein that since the petitioner was working as

        Commission Vendor on temporary basis in the Catering

        Department of the Eastern Railway prior to 01.01.2004 and his

        services were regularized on the post of Khalasi (Mechanical

        Carriage and Wagon) vide Office Order dated 26.03.2004, his case

        is not governed by Circular of the Railway Board bearing
Patna High Court CWJC No.6981 of 2025 dt.14-05-2026
                                           5/13




        No.28/2020. The petitioner herein had then filed the aforesaid OA

        No. 050/00516/2021 before the Ld. CAT inter alia praying therein

        for directing the respondent authorities to grant the benefits of Old

        Pension Scheme under the Rules, 1972, corresponding to the

        Rules, 1993 in compliance of the Circular dated 17.02.2020.

        6.      The respondents had filed a written statement before the Ld.

        CAT inter alia stating therein that while the petitioner was

        working as Commission Vendor on temporary basis in the

        Catering Department, he was appointed as Khalasi/C & W, Patna,

        vide order No.235 dated 25.03.2004. The petitioner had then filed

        an application without any enclosure for switching from the New

        Pension Scheme to Old Pension Scheme and after rejection of his

        claim, he has though filed the connected original application but

        the order of rejection dated 16.06.2021 has not been challenged. It

        was further stated in the written statement that the petitioner has

        been appointed with effect from 08.04.2004, vide Office Order

        No.235 dated 26.03.2004, hence he has been treated under the

        Non-Pensionable Scheme and accordingly retired from services

        on 31.08.2020. It was also stated that though the screening of the

        Commission Vendor was held and a panel was prepared, however

        the candidates who had been empanelled were required to be

        absorbed subject to availability of vacancies and as far as the case
Patna High Court CWJC No.6981 of 2025 dt.14-05-2026
                                           6/13




        of the petitioner is concerned, the vacancies arose in the year

        2004, whereafter Office Order dated 26.03.2004 was issued,

        regularizing the services of the petitioner as per the vacancies

        available in the year 2004, hence it is submitted that the claim of

        the petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law, inasmuch as the

        New Pension Scheme is applicable to all government servants

        who have been appointed on or after 01.01.2004 whereas the Old

        Pension Scheme is applicable to the government servants

        appointed up to 31.12.2003.

        7.      In reply to MA, the respondents had submitted before the

        Ld. CAT that the petitioner was not appointed through general

        selection process against any advertisement pertaining to any

        recruitment process of the Railways. It was also stated that for

        inclusion under the Rules, 1972/Rules, 1993, the concerned

        employee should 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.

        8.      The learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the

        impugned order dated 03.02.2025, passed by the Ld. CAT has

        submitted that since the process of absorption of the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.6981 of 2025 dt.14-05-2026
                                           7/13




        along with others had started prior to the cut-off date i.e.

        31.12.2003 and for no fault of the petitioner, he could not be

        regularized prior to the said date, he cannot be deprived of the

        benefits of the Old Pension Scheme in terms of the Circular dated

        17.02.2020, issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India,

        Department of Pension & PW, New Delhi as adopted by the East

        Central Railway vide Circular dt. 09.04.2020, issued by the Senior

        Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Danapur.

        9.      The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on a

        judgment dated 19.08.2013 rendered by the Ld. CAT in OA No.

        779 of 2012 (Manish Kumar and Others vs. Union of India and

        Others) to submit that if the select list expires because of no fault

        of the candidates and the candidates are found otherwise suitable

        to be appointed, then expiry of select list would not come in the

        way of the candidates from being appointed.

        10.     Per contra, the Ld. counsel for the respondents has

        submitted that since the petitioner was absorbed in regular

        services of the Eastern Railway vide Office Order dt. 25.03.2004

        and appointed as Khalasi in Carriage and Wagon Department as

        also he was not appointed through any advertisement/ notification

        for recruitment/appointment, prior to the date of notification for

        National Pension System, i.e. 22.12.2003, rather he was working
Patna High Court CWJC No.6981 of 2025 dt.14-05-2026
                                           8/13




        as Commission Vendor on temporary basis prior to absorption in

        the Railway, apart from the fact that the screening was held in the

        year 1995 for absorption of the persons working as Commission

        Vendors at different locations of the Eastern Railway, however

        owing to vacancy position at Danapur Division of Eastern

        Railway, the petitioner and others could be finally absorbed and

        appointed on regular basis only after commencement of the

        National Pension Scheme w.e.f 01.01.2004, hence the claim of the

        petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law.

        11.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

        perused the materials on record from which it is apparent that the

        petitioner was absorbed in the regular services of the Railways

        vide letter dated 26.03.2004 and appointed as Khalasi (Mechanical

        Carriage and Wagon) at Danapur Division with effect from

        08.04.2004. It is also not in dispute that the National Pension

        System was notified on 22.12.2003 and the new pension scheme

        came into effect on 01.01.2004, hence admittedly those employees

        who have been appointed up to 31.12.2003 are governed by the

        Old Pension Scheme and those who have been appointed after

        01.01.2004 would come under the purview of the New Pension

        Scheme. However, we find that on account of representations

        being received from such employees whose appointments were
Patna High Court CWJC No.6981 of 2025 dt.14-05-2026
                                           9/13




        delayed on account of administrative reasons or lapses, for

        granting them coverage under the Old Pension Scheme, the

        Department of Pension and PW, Government of India, New Delhi

        issued a Circular dated 17.02.2020, wherein it has been postulated

        that in all the illustrative cases mentioned therein, since the result

        for recruitment was declared before 01.01.2004, denial of

        pensionary benefits under the Rules, 1972 to the affected

        government servants is not justified, hence in consultation with

        the Department of Personnel & Training, Department of

        Expenditure and Department of Legal Affairs as well as in the

        light of various representations/references and decisions of the

        Courts in this regard, a decision has been taken that in all cases

        where the results for recruitment were declared before 01.01.2004

        against vacancies occurring on or before 31.12.2003, the

        candidates declared successful for recruitment shall be eligible for

        coverage under the Rules, 1972. Accordingly, such government

        servants who were declared successful for recruitment in the

        results declared on or before 31.12.2003 against vacancies

        occurring before 01.01.2004 and are covered under the National

        Pensions System on joining service on or after 01.01.2004, were

        required to be given onetime option to be covered under the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6981 of 2025 dt.14-05-2026
                                          10/13




        Rules, 1972 and the said option was to be exercised by the

        concerned government servant latest by 31.05.2020.

        12.     We further find that in Clause 4 of the said Circular dated

        17.02.2020, it has been clarified that the aforesaid option would

        be available to only those government servants who were declared

        successful for recruitment before 01.01.2004 against vacancies

        pertaining to the period prior to that date. It has been further

        clarified therein that this option shall, however not be available to

        the government servants appointed on or after 01.01.2004, if they

        fall in either of the following categories:-

                (i) Government servants whose name were included in a panel
                of selected candidates before 01.01.2004 for recruitment
                against vacancies occurring on or after 01.01.2004 and were,
                accordingly, recruited on or after 01.01.2004.

                (ii) A Government servant whose name was included in a
                panel of selected candidates prepared before 01.01.2004 for
                vacancies arising before and after 01.01.2004 but was actually
                appointed after 31.12.2003 against a vacancy arising on or
                after 01.01.2004.

                (iii) Government servants who were selected against vacancies
                pertaining to the period prior to 01.01.2004 on the basis of an
                advertisement/notification issued before 01.01.2004 or a
                written examination/interview held before 01.01.2004 but
                results for recruitment were declared on or after 01.01.2004.

                (iv) Government servants who joined on or after 01.01.2004
                after they were granted extension of joining time on their own
Patna High Court CWJC No.6981 of 2025 dt.14-05-2026
                                          11/13




                request and, in accordance with the instructions issued by the
                Department or Personnel & Training, their seniority was
                depressed on account of such extension of joining time to a
                batch for which the result for recruitment was declared on or
                after 01.01.2004.

        13.     We have gone through the aforesaid Circulars dt. 17.2.2020

        and 09.04.2020 and we find that only in cases where such

        government servants who have been declared successful for

        recruitment before 01.01.2004 against vacancies pertaining to

        period prior to that date are to be granted an option to avail the

        coverage of the Old Pension Scheme, however even those

        government servants whose names were though included in a

        panel of selected candidates prepared prior to 01.01.2004 for

        recruitment against vacancies occurring on or after 01.01.2004

        and were, accordingly, recruited on or after 01.01.2004, would not

        be entitled to the option of coverage under the Old Pension

        Scheme. In fact, such government servants who were selected

        against vacancies pertaining to the period prior to 01.01.2004 on

        the basis of advertisement/notification issued before 01.01.2004 or

        a written examination/interview held before 01.01.2004 but results

        for recruitment were declared on or after 01.01.2004, would also

        not be eligible for coverage under the Old Pension Scheme.

        14.     Now coming back to the present case, we find that first of

        all, the petitioner was not appointed against a post or vacancy,
Patna High Court CWJC No.6981 of 2025 dt.14-05-2026
                                          12/13




        which was advertised/notified for recruitment/appointment, prior

        to the date of notification of National Pension System, i.e.

        22.12.2003, however he was working as Commission Vendor

        since the year 1982 and pursuant to a policy decision taken by the

        Railways to absorb such temporary Commission Vendors who

        were working since a long time regularly, a list of 485

        Commission Vendors was prepared for the purposes of their

        absorption and it was decided to absorb such persons on the basis

        of their seniority in the said list as and when the vacancies arises.

        As far as the petitioner is concerned, his turn could come only in

        the year 2004 when the vacancies had arisen and only then he was

        regularized as Khalasi on a Group ‘D’ post vide Office Order

        dated 26.03.2004 w.e.f. 08.04.2004. Thus, the case of the

        petitioner would fall under the exclusion Clause mentioned in the

        Circular dated 17.02.2020, as has been reproduced hereinabove in

        the preceding paragraphs. Therefore, there is no iota of doubt that

        since the petitioner has been regularized/appointed as Khalasi on

        26.03.2004 with effect from 08.04.2004, his date of actual

        appointment being after 31.12.2003, he cannot be extended the

        coverage of Old Pension Scheme.

        15.     The judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the

        petitioner, rendered by the Ld. CAT Patna Bench, Patna in the
              Patna High Court CWJC No.6981 of 2025 dt.14-05-2026
                                                        13/13




                      case of Manish Kumar and Others (supra) is not applicable in the

                      facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as the issue which

                      has arisen for consideration in the present case is absolutely

                      different and distinguishable from the said case.

                      16.     Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

                      and for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the

                      present writ petition, hence the same stands dismissed.



                                                                    (Mohit Kumar Shah, J)


                                                                    (Arun Kumar Jha, J)

 GAURAV S./-
AFR/NAFR                          AFR
CAV DATE                       17.03.2026
Uploading Date                 14.05.2026
Transmission Date                 NA