Summary
The Court upheld pension coverage for Delhi University employees whose CPF options were submitted only after the prescribed cutoff. It also upheld an opportunity for the Shashi Kiran petitioners, who had timely chosen CPF, to switch to pension because comparable employees had repeatedly received that opportunity without a rational basis for excluding them. The employer’s CPF contribution had to be recouped with 8% simple interest.
Issues
- What effect the 1987 notification’s deeming clause had where a CPF option was submitted after the cutoff.
- Whether timely CPF optees in the Shashi Kiran batch were entitled to parity with employees permitted a later reverse option.
- What financial adjustment was necessary for the permitted switchover.
Provisions considered
- Paragraphs 3.1, 3.2 and 3.6, Government of India Office Memorandum dated 1 May 1987, adopted by Delhi UniversityApplied deemed pension coverage absent a timely affirmative CPF option, while assessing discriminatory denial of subsequent opportunities in the particular batches. (¶¶ 3(b), 12-15, 20-25)
- Statute 28-A(5), Delhi University StatutesNoted the provision extending advantageous Central Government retirement-benefit amendments to University employees and the University’s adoption of the 1987 arrangement. (¶¶ 3(c), 3(d))
Held
- An employee without an affirmative CPF option by the cutoff was deemed to enter the pension scheme. Continued CPF contributions did not defeat that consequence. The University had accepted the Virmani decision; the same reasoning rendered belated CPF options ineffective in the Bakshi batch, whose favourable decision was affirmed. (¶¶ 8, 12, 15)
- The Shashi Kiran petitioners had timely opted for CPF, but comparable CPF optees had subsequently received repeated opportunities to switch to pension. No rational justification explained exclusion of these petitioners while allowing that benefit to the substantial earlier group. The Court sustained relief on parity within that category. (¶¶ 17, 20-22)
- Krishena Kumar’s distinction between provident-fund retirees and pension retirees, and the absence of an inherent right to demand extensions recognised in Dwarka Prasad Koolwal, did not decide this unequal treatment within the same category and its particular history. The judgment did not create a universal right to reopen any pension option. (¶ 18-22)
- The financial objection was assessed against the original scheme’s contemplated coverage and the limited group of seventy-five petitioners who had approached the Court. To prevent retention of both benefits, the authorities’ CPF contribution was to be recouped with 8% simple interest per annum. (¶¶ 23, 24)
- Switchover was to remain an option for the Shashi Kiran employees, since some might no longer wish to exercise it. The High Court’s result was preserved subject to the recoupment direction; the competent authorities could arrange the manner of offering the option. (¶¶ 25, 26)
Result
University’s appeal in the N.C. Bakshi batch dismissed. Shashi Kiran relief upheld subject to recoupment of the employer’s CPF contribution with 8% simple annual interest and an option to switch. All appeals disposed of without costs.