UNIVERSITY OF DELHI versus SMT. SHASHI KIRAN & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 957 · Decided: 10-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
957
   [2022] 7 S.C.R. 957
957
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
v.
SMT. SHASHI KIRAN & ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3797-3809 of 2022)
MAY 10, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Service Law: Pensionary benefits – Contributory Provident
Fund-CPF and General Provident Fund and Pension Scheme-GPF
– Shift from CPF to GPF after the cut-off date – On facts, issuance
of Notification by the University on 25.05.1987 that all CPF
beneficiaries in service on 01.01.1986 would be deemed to have
“come over” to GPF under Statute 28-A unless such employees had
opted to continue under CPF – By cut-off date, of 30.09.1987, 2611
employees of the University opted to continue under CPF while the
rest of the employees, were deemed to have “come over” to GPF –
Thereafter, grant of extensions for exercising the option to remain
under CPF wherein option exercised by 626 employees – University
kept extending the cut off date for switchover from CPF to GPF –
Cut off date for exercise of option under the last notification was
31.01.1999 – 2469 employees exercised their option for switchover
from CPF to GPF – After the deadline the option given for switchover
was incorrect – Writ petition by employees, those who did not exercise
their choice, but continued to make payment of contribution towards
CPF (first batch), employees who chose CPF in the first two
extensions but later wanted to shift to GPF (second batch), and
employees who chose CPF before the cut-off date but wanted to
change to GPF (third batch) – Case of first and second batch
allowed - However, as regards the third batch, the Single Judge
held that the employees having consciously exercised the option to
be under CPF, their prayer of switchover cannot be accepted
whereas the Division Bench held that switch-over to the Pension
Scheme was permitted upto 31.12.2003 to several other autonomous
institutions, thus, denying the right to opt to the Pension Scheme in
the case of the third batch unsustainable – On appeal, held:
Differential treatment afforded to those 2469 employees as against
the employees in third batch of cases, not founded on any rationale
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
958
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
– If those 2469 employees could be afforded chance to exercise an
option of switchover to GPF, even though they had consciously
opted to be under CPF, on principle of parity or equality, the case
was certainly made out – Going by the intent of the notification,
those who were to opt for CPF, were an exception and the general
rule was that everybody after 01.01.1986 would normally be covered
by GPF – In the third batch of cases, the concern is with only 75
persons – Bulk of people namely 2469 employees were granted the
choice of reverse switchover and they were allowed all the benefits
under GPF – When the notification dated 01.05.1987 was issued,
the authorities were conscious of the possibility that all the employees
may ‘come over’ to GPF and accordingly the fund was constituted
and the affairs were arranged – Shift of those 75 employees would
not in any way affect the strength and the character of the fund –
Thus, the decision by the Division Bench of the High Court in the
third batch does not call for any interference except to the extent of
direction for recouping of the contribution under CPF with 8% simple
interest pa.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The common thread which ran through the
decisions of the Single Judge pertaining to three batches of cases,
was that the text of the notification dated 01.05.1987 was clear
that if no option was exercised by the concerned employees before
the cut-off date, they would be deemed to have ‘come over’ to
GPF. It was only a positive option exercised by the employees to
continue to be under CPF which could have departed from such
deeming provision. Once exercised, the option was final and as
such, there could be no switchover from those who had
consciously opted to be under CPF. Further, relying on the
decision in S.L. Verma, it was observed that any exercise of option
after the deadline or the cut-off would be inconsequential. It was
on this premise that the cases in R.N. Virmani batch of cases and
N.K. Bakshi batch of cases were allowed by the learned Single
Judge. As regards Shashi Kiran batch of cases, the Single Judge
observed, that once the conscious decision was taken and option
was exercised to continue to be under CPF, there was “no room
for any come back situation.” The cases in the third batch we

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.