India Rules Out Old Pension Scheme Restoration as Five States Revert to OPS

On Monday, August 10, 2026, Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Chaudhary told the Lok Sabha that the Government of India has no proposal under consideration to restore the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), citing unsustainable fiscal liability on the central exchequer. In the same written reply, he said five state governments have informed the Centre and the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA) that they are reverting from the National Pension System (NPS) to OPS — together accounting for roughly Rs 1.45 lakh crore in NPS assets — but that no legal provision exists to refund that corpus to the states.

Editor’s note: This article draws on the Ministry of Finance’s Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 3637 (answered August 10, 2026), reporting by The Economic Times, Moneycontrol, and Livemint, and parliamentary coverage in Indian media published August 10–11, 2026.

What Chaudhary told Parliament

Responding to Unstarred Question No. 3637 from MP Dr. Indra Hang Subba, Chaudhary addressed three points:

Question part	Official answer
(a)–(b) Will the Centre implement OPS, and if not, why?	No proposal to restore OPS because of its unsustainable fiscal liability on the government exchequer
(c) Which states have moved to OPS, how much NPS money is involved, and when will funds be returned?	Five states listed below; no statutory route to refund accumulated NPS corpus to state governments

The minister’s language was categorical: there is no plan at the central level to bring back the defined-benefit scheme that many government employees have campaigned to restore since NPS became the default for new recruits from 2004.

OPS, NPS, and why the debate matters

India’s pension architecture shifted sharply over the past two decades:

Old Pension Scheme (OPS)

• A defined-benefit system: retirees receive a pension typically equal to half of the last drawn basic pay, with periodic dearness relief adjustments.
• The government bears the long-term funding risk; there is no individual investment account in the same way as NPS.
• OPS was closed to most new central government entrants from January 1, 2004, though some state employees remained on OPS until their states adopted NPS.

National Pension System (NPS)

• A defined-contribution model: employees and employers contribute to individual accounts invested in market-linked instruments.
• Retirement income depends on accumulated corpus and annuity choices, not a fixed formula tied to final salary.
• Governed by the PFRDA Act, 2013 and related regulations on exits and withdrawals.

Unified Pension Scheme (UPS)

• Introduced for central government employees as a middle path, UPS offers a minimum assured payout (reported at Rs 10,000 per month in recent government statements) with an inflation-linked defined-benefit component for those who meet service conditions.
• The August 10 reply did not announce changes to UPS; it focused on ruling out a full OPS rollback.

For lakhs of government employees and pensioners, the distinction is not academic. OPS promises predictable post-retirement income; NPS shifts investment and longevity risk toward subscribers. State-level reversions to OPS have intensified that debate without changing the Centre’s baseline policy.

Five states and the Rs 1.45 lakh crore question

Chaudhary said the following state governments informed the Centre/PFRDA about reversion from NPS to OPS, with NPS assets under management (AUM) as of July 26, 2026:

State	NPS AUM (Rs crore)
Rajasthan	53,403.89
Punjab	40,673.08
Chhattisgarh	24,030.04
Jharkhand	14,420.90
Himachal Pradesh	12,525.96
Combined total	~1,45,053.87

These figures represent subscriber balances — government contributions, employee contributions, and investment accruals — held under NPS before states moved to restore OPS for their employees.

Chaudhary added that restoring OPS within a state falls under that state’s policy discretion. The Centre’s position, however, is that individual states choosing OPS does not oblige the Union government to reinstate OPS for central employees or to unwind NPS nationally.

Why the Centre says NPS funds cannot be returned

A central tension in the August 10 statement is what happens to money already deposited in NPS when a state declares OPS restored.

Chaudhary cited the PFRDA Act, 2013, read with the PFRDA (Exits and Withdrawals under the National Pension System) Regulations, 2015, and related rules. His answer: there is no provision under which the accumulated corpus — comprising government and employee contributions plus accruals — can be refunded and deposited back to a state government.

In plain terms:

• NPS balances are legally tied to subscriber accounts and statutory exit rules, not to a state treasury reimbursement mechanism.
• States that reverted to OPS may face parallel fiscal pressures: honouring OPS promises for current and future retirees while NPS pools remain locked under federal pension law.
• The Centre framed its refusal to restore OPS nationally as a fiscal-sustainability decision, not a technical glitch — unfunded defined-benefit pensions compound long-run exchequer risk as life expectancy rises and pay scales grow.

Indian business media noted that Chaudhary’s reply landed amid ongoing employee-union demands, state election politics, and litigation in some jurisdictions over NPS versus OPS. The parliamentary answer does not resolve those state-level fights; it clarifies Union policy and the statutory limits on corpus transfers.

Fiscal context cited alongside the pension reply

In related Lok Sabha answers reported the same day, Chaudhary pointed to improving central fiscal metrics — including a reduction in the government’s fiscal deficit from 6.7% of GDP in 2021–22 to 4.4% of GDP in 2025–26 (provisional) — as part of the broader fiscal framework within which pension choices are made.

Pension policy sits inside that constraint: every percentage point of GDP committed to unfunded retirement promises is a percentage point unavailable for capital spending, subsidies, or debt consolidation. That is the economic logic the government invoked when calling OPS fiscally unsustainable at the national level.

What this means for employees

Group	Immediate implication of Aug. 10 statement
Central government staff on NPS/UPS	No OPS restoration proposed; UPS remains the defined-benefit-oriented alternative on offer centrally
State employees in the five reverting states	State OPS policies stand, but NPS corpus refund to state treasuries is ruled out under current law
Employees still campaigning for OPS	Parliamentary record now shows a clear Centre rejection; further change would require new legislation or judicial intervention, not an administrative toggle

PFRDA oversight continues for NPS subscribers nationwide. Employees considering retirement planning should treat the August 10 reply as binding policy guidance from the Finance Ministry, not a forecast of state-level court outcomes.

---

Discussion

Pension design forces a trade-off between security for retirees and predictability for treasuries — and India’s August 10 answer drew that line firmly on the fiscal side.

1. If you are a government employee or dependent, does defined-benefit OPS feel like a earned right — or a subsidy future taxpayers may not be able to afford?

2. Five states moved back toward OPS while the Centre held NPS. Can a country run two pension philosophies in parallel without confusing workers — or bankrupting some state budgets?

If you work in India’s public sector or follow state politics, where do you think this fight goes next — courts, elections, or a revised national compromise like UPS?

---