Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Shantanu Chatterji And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 February, 2026
102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CM-1098-LPA-2026 in/and
LPA-1940-2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision:20.02.2026
DR SHANTANU CHATTERJI AND OTHERS ....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ....RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR
Present: Mr. Rishav Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Harpal Singh Saini, Advocate
for the applicants-appellants.
Mr. Arun Gosain, Senior Government Counsel
for respondents No.1 and 2-Union of India.
****
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)
CM-1098-LPA-2026 (restoration) This application under Order 41 Rule 19 of the CPC has been filed on behalf of the applicants-appellants seeking restoration of the main appeal being LPA-1940-2017 which was dismissed by this Court for non-prosecution on 02.02.2026.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The main appeal being LPA-1940-2017 is restored to its original number and position.
Main Case (O&M)
1. With the consent of both parties, the main appeal is taken up for hearing today itself.
1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2026 00:33:10 ::: LPA-1940-2017 (O&M) 2
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 09.05.2017 passed in CWP No.941 of 2013, whereby the appellants' claim to switch over from the Contributory Pension Fund Scheme (for short, 'CPF Scheme') to the General Pension Fund Scheme (for short, 'GPF Scheme') has been rejected.
3. It is not in dispute that the appellants were appointed on different dates between 1981 and 1988. While in service, all the appellants exercised a specific option to opt for the New Pension Scheme (for short, 'NPS'). Relying upon their specific option, they were included in the NPS. Much later, an attempt was made to claim the benefit of the GPF as well as the Old Pension Scheme (for short, 'OPS'). This prayer was rejected on 04.05.2006. The said order dated 04.05.2006 has not been challenged. It was after nearly seven years that a writ of mandamus was filed by the appellants seeking a direction to convert them to the GPF/OPS from their present status as employees covered under the NPS. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge after noticing the following aspects:
(i) the appellants themselves had opted for the benefit of the NPS, therefore, their subsequent change of stand did not merit acceptance;
(ii) the specific order by which the claim of the appellants was rejected had not been assailed; and
(iii) the writ petition was filed nearly seven years after rejection of their claim, without challenging the order of rejection.
2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2026 00:33:11 ::: LPA-1940-2017 (O&M) 3
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in some other organizations, a further right of conversion from NPS to OPS was conferred, and therefore denial of similar treatment to the appellants is bad in law. It is also argued that the only reason assigned for rejecting the claim was that the benefit of conversion would be applicable only to Central Government employees and not to employees of autonomous bodies.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the appeal on the basis of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment.
6. Having gone through the material on record, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, inasmuch as the appellants had consciously opted to be included in the NPS and, having done so, cannot subsequently turn around and seek inclusion in a different scheme when the departmental circulars do not permit such change at a later stage. We also find that the order by which their claim was rejected was never challenged, and the writ petition was filed several years after rejection of their representation in that regard. Furthermore, much time has elapsed since then, and most of the appellants have not only retired but have also availed themselves of the benefits admissible under the NPS.
7. In these circumstances, the instant appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
8. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2026 00:33:11 ::: LPA-1940-2017 (O&M) 4 disposed of.
[ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA] JUDGE [ROHIT KAPOOR] JUDGE FEBRUARY 20, 2026 Rahul Joshi
1. Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
2. Whether Reportable Yes/No 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 24-02-2026 00:33:11 :::