The core issue revolves around eligibility for a specific retirement benefits scheme, the General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme. The university’s statutes indicate that this scheme is the default option unless an employee actively chooses the alternative Contributory Provident Fund scheme. The court ultimately ruled in favor of appellant, overturning a High Court decision, as his failure to opt into the Contributory Provident Fund meant he should automatically be included in the pension scheme.
Rajendra Agricultural University Statutes, 1976, Chapter 16 – Service Law – Retirement benefits – Pensions, General Provident Fund and Contributory Provident Fund – Claim for pension denied on the ground that appellant did not submit option Office in terms of Order dated 21.02.2008 – Chapter 16 of the University Statute that was in force at the time of the appellant’s appointment clearly stipulates the applicable scheme of retiral benefits for the University’s employees – Chapter 16.1(a) provides that scheme for pension, General Provident Fund and Contributory Provident Fund shall be as mentioned in the chapter – Chapter 16.1(b)(i) states that employees appointed by the respondent-University “will be entitled to pension provided they do not opt for subscribing to the Contributory Provident Fund” – Chapter 16.1(c) provides for various kinds of pension and gratuity and Chapter 16.1(e) provides that those who are not admitted to the Contributory Provident Fund shall get the benefit of General Provident Fund – These provisions clearly show that the default retiral scheme applicable to the University’s employees is General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity, unless the employee has specifically opted for the Contributory Provident Fund scheme – Office Order dated 21.02.2008, which was issued to implement the provisions of Chapter 16 of the University Statute, also has the same effect – It allows the employees to opt for two kinds of Contributory Provident Fund Schemes within 1 month from issuance, and Clause (IV) provides that the employees who do not exercise their option for either scheme “shall be included in the Pension Scheme in terms of the Chapter (16.1) of the Act” – Therefore, even under the Office Order, non-exercise of any option to opt into the Contributory Provident Fund automatically entitles the University employees, including the appellant, to be included in the General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme – Appellant did not exercise his option under the Office Order dated 21.02.2008, he did not opt in for the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme – Held that as per the University Statutes and the Office Order, he is entitled to retiral benefits under the General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum- gratuity scheme – High Court wrongly dismissed his writ petition on the ground that he did not exercise his option – In fact, being included under the second retiral scheme is a consequence of non-exercise of option provided under the Office Order – Further, once the High Court granted relief to similarly placed persons, it ought not to have dismissed the appellant’s writ petition -Impugned order passed by the High Court liable to be set aside, and direct that the appellant be provided retiral benefits under the General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme in accordance with law and subject to adjustments of the benefits, if any, availed by the appellant under the Contributory Provident Fund scheme.
(Para 9 to 13)
Mukesh Prasad Singh V. Then Rajendra Agricultural
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 312: (DoJ 04-03-2025)
