Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This writ petition, at the instance of certain teachers employed in the University College of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as "UCMS"), impugns the rejection, by the University of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the University") and the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the UGC"), of their request for being permitted to switch over, from the Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity (CPF) Scheme, to the General Provident Fund- cum-Gratuity-cum-Pension (GPF) Scheme. The petitioner avers that she, and certain similarly placed employees, approached „Common Cause‟, a registered NGO, which addressed a representation, on their behalf, to the University, which was also turned down on 2nd September, 2003. The petitioner, therefore, contends that she was entitled to convert from the CPF the GPF Scheme and that, in rejecting her request for such conversion, the respondents acted in violation of the law. Accordingly, the writ petition seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to switch over from the CPF to the GPF Scheme, as opted by her in 1999.

7. By a subsequent communication, dated 20 th November, 1998, addressed to the individual colleges (including the UCMS), the last date, for submission of options for switching over from the CPF to the GPF Scheme, by the employees, was extended, by the University, till the 1st week of February, 1999.

8. Taking note of the fact that various autonomous bodies, including Universities and, significantly, the IIT, Kanpur, had, while applying the instructions, of the DOPT, permitting switch-over from the CPF to the GPF Scheme, fixed their own cut-off dates and had been allowing exercise of such option year after year at a stretch, the UGC wrote to the MHRD, pointing out that a situation of disparity, amongst similarly placed employees in different autonomous bodies, had arisen. In order to neutralise the situation, the UGC stated, in the said letter, that it was necessary to obtain the consent of the MHRD to allow one more cut-off date "to stop this disparity in UGC and other autonomous institutions within UGC umbrella specially in all those institutions where the pension scheme already exists and only a few employees have been left out for the switchover from CP fund to GP fund." It was also pointed out, in the said communication, that the cost of extending the scheme, in these cases, would be minimal, and would not cast any additional burden on the exchequer. Accordingly, the MHRD was requested to consider the suggestion of the UGC and "extend the schemes of conversion from CPF to GPF scheme to all employees of autonomous bodies (or to employees of UGC/Central and Deemed Universities) who have already pension scheme since inception, and notify some clear-cut off future date, so that these institutions do not fix their own cut-off dates and create disparities and confusion."

16. Without further ado, one may refer, immediately, to the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court (authored by S. Ravindra Bhat, J.), in Shashi Kiran (supra), which adjudicated a batch of Letters Patent Appeals(LPAs), preferred against the judgement of a learned Single Judge of this Court. The facts, in the said case, parallel those in the present. There, too, teachers of the University, who had, pursuant to the periodical notifications issued by the University, permitting them to opt for being transposed to the GPF Scheme, from the CPF Scheme, so opted, approached this Court, consequent on their requests for transposition being rejected. There were three categories of such teachers. The first category consisted of teachers who had initially in 1987, exercised a positive option to remain under the CPF Scheme and, later, opted for being switched over to the GPF Scheme, pursuant to the Notification, issued by the University, inviting such options. The learned Single Judge had, in the case of such teachers (referred to, in the judgement of the Division Bench, as the "Shashi Kiran batch"), dismissed the writ petitions, on the ground that employees of the University, who had earlier consciously opted to remain in the CPF Scheme, were in a "no comeback" situation, and could not, therefore, later seek conversion to the GPF Scheme. The second category (referred to, in the judgement of the Division Bench, as the "Virmani batch") consisted of teachers who had not exercised their option, in 1987, to remain in the CPF Scheme and, later, sought conversion to the GPF Scheme. In the case of these teachers, the learned Single Judge held that they were entitled, in any case, to the benefits of the GPF Scheme, in view of the fact that the original OM, dated 1st May, 1987, as adopted by the University, treated all employees, who had not consciously opted for remaining under the CPF Scheme, as automatically converted to the GPF Scheme. As such, held the learned Single Judge, the University could not deny, to the Virmani batch, the benefit of the GPF Scheme. In other words, the learned Single Judge distinguished the teachers in the Shashi Kiran batch, from those in the Virmani batch, on the ground of the former having consciously opted, in 1987, to remain in the CPF Scheme, as against the latter, who had not so opted. This difference, in the perception of the learned Single Judge, was crucial. The learned Single Judge proceeded on the premise that, employees who had opted to remain in the CPF Scheme in 1987, stood foreclosed from, thereafter, seeking conversion to the GPF Scheme. Those who had not so opted, in 1987, for remaining in the CPF Scheme (i.e. the Virmani batch) were, per corollary, entitled to all the benefits of the GPF Scheme, as, in default of their having opted for continuing under the CPF Scheme, they, in any case, automatically stood transferred to the GPF Scheme in 1987 itself. It is important to note that the learned Single Judge did not extend, to either batch of teachers, the benefit of their subsequent option, as a basis to accede their request for conversion to the GPF Scheme. The case was decided, in respect of both categories of teachers, on the basis of what they did in 1987.

The only contention advanced by the University, to counter the case of the money batch, was that the said teachers had allowed, over the years, deduction of CPF amounts from their salaries. The Division Bench held, and unexceptionably, that such deduction did not stop the Virmani batch of teachers from claiming the benefits of the GPF scheme.

(ii) However, insofar as the Shashi Kiran batch was concerned, the Division Bench did not agree with the judgement of the learned Single Judge. It was observed, in this regard, that, in view of the fact that the Central Government had itself permitted employees in other institutions, including educational institutions such as the IIT Kanpur (which parallelizes the case of the teachers in the Shashi Kiran batch to the present petitioners), to opt, in extended dates, for switch-over to the GPF Scheme, the rejection, by the Central Government, of the request, of UGC, for extension of the conversion date till 31 st December, 2003, was arbitrary and reflective of non-application of mind. The Division Bench further opined that, in the matter of grant of option to convert to the GPF Scheme, to employees who sought to avail the benefit of the extended cut-off dates, no distinction could be drawn between employees who had originally opted for retention in the CPF scheme, and those who had not done so. This was because, according to the Division Bench, the employees could not be expected to gaze into the crystal ball, as it were, and predict how, over a period of time, the two Schemes would work themselves out, or which would, at any given point of time, be more beneficial to their interests. Additionally, where the option to switch over to the GPF Scheme was permitted, upto 31st December, 2003, in the case of other autonomous institutions, the Division Bench held that there was no justification to deny the said benefit to employees of the University. Proceeding on the said reasoning, the Division Bench held, reversing the judgement of the learned Single Judge in that regard, that denying the right, to opt for the GPF Scheme, in the case of the Shashi Kiran batch, was unsustainable and had resulted in arbitrariness. The appeals, filed by the employees constituting the said batch were, therefore, allowed.