The Old Pension Scheme delayed appointment case ended with the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court refusing to shift a teacher to the Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS). The Court held that the authorities caused the delay in her appointment. Therefore, they could not deny her the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme.
A Division Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice M. Jothiraman dismissed the writ appeal filed by the Madurai Corporation. The Bench upheld the earlier order of the Single Judge in The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation & Ors. v. K. Nalayini & Ors., WA (MD) No. 771 of 2026.
Background of the Dispute
The respondent participated in the recruitment process for the post of Drawing Teacher after the Employment Exchange sponsored her name in 1999. The authorities included her in the selection list and called her for certificate verification in 2000. However, they did not issue her appointment order.
She and other selected candidates approached the High Court. The litigation included a writ petition, contempt proceedings, and a review application. The Court eventually directed the authorities to appoint all nine selected candidates.
The authorities appointed four candidates on December 12, 2002. However, they issued the respondent’s appointment order only on October 31, 2003. She joined duty on November 3, 2003.
Corporation Sought to Shift Teacher to CPS
For more than two decades, the respondent remained under the Old Pension Scheme. She also received a General Provident Fund account.
Later, an audit objection prompted the Corporation to issue a show-cause notice dated August 1, 2025. The notice directed her to join the Contributory Pension Scheme. The Corporation relied on G.O. (Ms.) No. 259 dated August 6, 2003, which applies to employees appointed on or after April 1, 2003.
The Single Judge quashed the notice. The Corporation then filed the present appeal.
Corporation and Teacher Presented Rival Arguments
The Corporation argued that the respondent entered service after the April 1, 2003 cut-off date. Therefore, it claimed that the Contributory Pension Scheme applied to her. It also argued that her inclusion in the Old Pension Scheme resulted from an administrative error.
The respondent argued that the authorities alone caused the delay in issuing her appointment order. She pointed out that she belonged to the same selection process as the candidates who received appointments before the cut-off date. She relied on Supreme Court decisions to argue that an employer’s delay should not deprive an employee of pension benefits.
Court Found Delay Was Entirely the Authorities’ Fault
The Division Bench found that the respondent and the other selected candidates belonged to the same recruitment process. The judges held that the authorities alone caused the delay in issuing her appointment order.
The Court ruled that the respondent could not suffer discrimination simply because she joined service after the cut-off date. It also held that the authorities could not take away the benefit flowing from earlier court orders after more than two decades.
The Bench agreed with the Single Judge’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s earlier decisions. It held that the show-cause notice seeking to shift the respondent to the Contributory Pension Scheme had no legal basis.
Appeal Dismissed
The Division Bench found no reason to interfere with the Single Judge’s decision. It dismissed the writ appeal and confirmed the respondent’s right to continue under the Old Pension Scheme. The Court also closed the connected miscellaneous petition without costs.
The Old Pension Scheme delayed appointment ruling reinforces that employees should not lose pension benefits because authorities failed to issue appointment orders on time.
