Who among the following can join the National Pension System (NPS) ?

Says NPS allows 'All citizens of India' (aged 18–70) to join and explicitly states 'NRIs have also been allowed to open NPS account.'

Use this to infer that non-resident Indian citizens (NRIs) are treated as eligible in addition to resident citizens and check year-specific rules or notifications around 2017 for confirmation.

Defines NPS as a scheme 'to provide old age security to Citizens of India' and classifies accounts by citizenship-related categories.

Combine this with the explicit NRI allowance (snippet 1) to explore whether eligibility was limited by residency or by citizenship status in 2017.

Defines 'ordinary resident' and distinguishes residents from foreign citizens, giving a sense of how 'resident' status is treated in Indian policy texts.

A student could use the resident/ordinary resident definitions to judge whether 'resident citizen' is a necessary criterion for schemes like NPS, by comparing with rules that explicitly mention NRIs.

Provides comparison and eligibility context for Non-Resident Indian (NRI), Person of Indian Origin (PIO) and Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) categories.

Use these definitions to determine which of these categories might qualify as 'citizens' or be separately allowed for NPS enrollment in 2017.

Specifies who may be registered as an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder, clarifying citizenship-versus-registration distinctions.

Combine with NPS citizenship language to assess whether OCI/PIO holders would be included or excluded by 'citizens of India' phrasing in scheme rules around 2017.

Shows a clear pattern for the Central Government/CABs: NPS coverage is tied to a specific 'date of joining' (e.g., on or after Jan 1, 2004) — eligibility depends on joining date.

A student could infer that similar ‘date-of-joining’ rules might be used by states and then check individual State notifications to see whether they adopted the same pattern for state employees.

Defines NPS as a centrally regulated scheme administered by PFRDA and classifies categories under the scheme, implying rule-based, administrable coverage.

One could combine this with the fact that PFRDA sets framework rules and then look for state-level notifications or PFRDA/state circulars (post-2013 Act) to determine if states made employees eligible after their notification dates.

Explains that state services are distinct and that immediate control of All-India Services vests with states — illustrating that states have jurisdiction over their own service conditions.

A student could use this to justify checking state government powers to decide pension rules for state employees (i.e., whether states can notify NPS applicability to their staff).

States that personnel of state services work under exclusive jurisdiction of the state government and that service structures differ by state.

This supports the approach of examining each State Government’s notifications individually, since states can independently determine service conditions (including pension scheme adoption and applicable joining dates).

States NPS was introduced for Central Government from 1 Jan 2004 but explicitly says 'except for armed forces' and that NPS is mandatory for Central Govt. and Central Autonomous Bodies (CAB) employees who joined on/after that date.

A student could infer that armed forces personnel were excluded at introduction and therefore should check whether any later policy (by 2017) changed that exclusion.

Shows that pension schemes often have specific cut-off dates and salary-based or scheme-specific eligibility rules (example: EPF/EPS rules for those joining on/after a date).

Apply this pattern to NPS: a researcher should look for similar date-based or category-based exclusions or amendments affecting armed forces or other groups up to 2017.

Describes NPS operational features (employee contribution, annuity rules) and contrasts it with the old OPS where employees did not contribute, implying a structural change that could be applied differently across employee groups.

Use this to reason that because NPS shifts contribution responsibility to employees, some groups (e.g., armed forces) might have been treated differently, prompting verification of exclusions or phased inclusion until 2017.

Provides examples of multiple, sector-specific pension schemes (PM-SYM, NPS for traders) indicating pension coverage in India is fragmented and often tailored by worker category.

A student could use this pattern to suspect that armed forces or certain Central employees might have distinct pension arrangements and thus may not be automatically covered by NPS as of 2017.

Explains that salaries and pensions for All-India Services are met by states, highlighting administrative/financial distinctions between service categories.

This suggests checking administrative responsibility (Central vs State vs Armed Forces) is relevant to determine whether a particular employee group was brought under NPS by 2017.