Old Pension Scheme: Calcutta HC says employees cannot lose pension benefits over a technical job-switching lapse
A government employee who moved from a peon’s post to a lower-grade clerk’s job in 2007 after being selected through a separate recruitment process has got a fresh opportunity to seek coverage under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), after the Calcutta High Court found that a technical procedural lapse should not by itself defeat a beneficial pension provision.
In its September 7, 2026 judgment in Shri Erotu Kurma Rao vs Union of India & Others (WP.CT/4/2026), 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. 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.”
Employee had applied for two government jobs
The employee had first applied for the post of peon against a recruitment advertisement issued in 2002. He was appointed in September 2006. Separately, he had applied for the post of lower-grade clerk against a 2005 advertisement.
After he was selected as a lower-grade clerk, he resigned from the peon’s post on 14 March 2007. Importantly, 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. He joined as a lower-grade clerk on 27 March 2007.
His appointment to the new post, however, was covered by the New Pension Scheme, 2004.
The issue surfaced much later when the government issued an Office Memorandum dated 3 March 2023 providing a one-time option for eligible Central government employees appointed against vacancies advertised before 22 December 2003 to come under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972/2021.
The employee sought the benefit, but his claim was rejected on the ground that he had resigned from his earlier post without applying for a technical resignation.
Court says employee cannot be expected to know every service rule
The authorities argued that the employee should have disclosed his pending application for the lower-grade clerk’s post when he joined as a peon. Since he did not, they argued that his resignation could not be treated as a technical resignation.
The High Court took a broader view.
It noted that an unemployed person can apply for several government jobs because there is no certainty that any particular application will result in selection. A person who gets one job cannot necessarily be expected to know whether another application will eventually result in an appointment.
The court also noted that there was no material showing that the employee had been specifically informed, when he joined as a peon in 2006, that he was required to disclose all pending job applications.
The 2016 Office Memorandum dealing with technical resignation came much later. The court therefore found it difficult to use the disclosure requirement in that memorandum to impose a disadvantage on the employee for events that took place in 2006-07.
What the ruling means for government employees
The ruling does not mean that every government employee who changed jobs before 2004 or 2006 will automatically get OPS. The employee’s eligibility under the March 2023 Office Memorandum still has to be examined.
What the court has said is that the claim cannot be rejected solely because the employee did not obtain or apply for a technical resignation.
The bench also stressed that the March 2023 OM was a welfare measure and should not be interpreted through an excessively narrow or technical approach. It relied on earlier judicial principles that procedural requirements should not become a means of denying substantive benefits under welfare schemes.
The court consequently 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 an important point 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.
