In Mukesh Prasad Singh vs. The Then Rajendra Agricultural University (Now Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University) & Ors (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices P. Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra set aside the order dated November 24, 2022 by the Patna High Court's Division Bench and directed 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. Necessary computation and disbursement in that regard shall be made within a period of four months from today" on March 4, 2025. The High Court's judgement was delivered by Justices P. B. Bajanthri and Purnendu Singh. The 7-page long judgement was authored by Justice Singh wherein he had endorsed the Single Judge Bench order by Justice Mohit Kumar Shah.
The appellant was appointed as Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor by the respondent-University in 1987. At the time of his appointment, the University was governed by the Rajendra Agricultural University Statutes, 1976.
At the time of joining the service on 23.01.1987, the Appellant was covered under the CPF Scheme. The option for making a choice of a particular retirement pension scheme from among the two types of retiral benefit schemes provided for in the University Act, was invited from the employees of the Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa and its units as early as in the year 1990, 1995, 1996 and 2008, but the appellant could not avail any of the the opportunities for switching over to Pension-cum-gratuity-cum-C.P.F Scheme within a stipulated period of time. The Appellant also failed to reap the benefits of the letter dated 21.02.2008 which provided one month time to make submissions. The University had received the option of the appellant in pension-cum-gratuity-cum-C.P.F. Scheme on 24.04.2008, after much delay from the stipulated time.
The High Court's Division bench had concluded:" We are of the opinion that the order of the Learned Single Judge is well considered and requires no interference" and dismissed the petition." Justice Mohit Kumar Shah, the Single Judge had concluded after hearing counsel for the parties. His 4-page long order reads:"I find the Respondent No. 5 and by the Deputy Registrar, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa in their counter affidavit regarding the petitioner having not opted for pension cum gratuity cum G.P.F. scheme either in the year 1990 or 1995 or 1996 or in the year 2008 as well as regarding him not submitting his option in time, hence, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I do not find any merit in the present case, hence, the writ petition is dismissed." The Respondent No. 5 refers to the State of Bihar through Agricultural Production Commissioner, Patna.
In the penultimate paragraph, the Supreme Court observed:"Since it is an admitted fact that the 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. Therefore, 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. The 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."
The appeal arose from High Court's order dated November 24, 2022 that dismissed the appellant’s writ appeal against the single judge’s order dated February 27, 2019, by which the appellant’s writ petition to be included in the University’s General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme of retiral benefits was dismissed.
A reading of Chapter 16 of the University Statute makes it clear that there are two schemes of retiral benefits: (i) Contributory Provident Fund, which employees must opt for and which disentitles employees from receiving pension and General Provident Fund as per Chapter 16.1(b)(i) and 16.1(e); and (ii) General Provident Fund, pension, and gratuity for those employees who do not opt for Contributory Provident Fund.
Notably, 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.
The 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.
The Court noted that the High Court had taken note of this position while disposing of writ petitions with similar prayers by other employees of the respondent-University. In the decision of Arjun Kumar vs. State of Bihar and ors CWJC 2041 of 2012, order dated December 10, 2012 a single judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition by holding that the option was to be exercised only by those who wanted to be included in the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, while other employees would be covered by the General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme as per Chapter 16.1 of the University Statute.
Significantly, the High Court had also allowed other writ petitions with similar prayers on a similar reasoning in Dr Vijay Kumar Jaiswal vs. Bihar Agriculture University and ors, CWJC 12667/2012, order dated July 25, 2017; Ramjanam Prasad vs. Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, Pusa and ors, CWJC 2377/2006, order dated February 13, 2018; Dr Surendra Bahadur Singh vs. Bihar Agriculture University Sabore, Bhagalpur and ors, CWJC 1941/2014, order dated November 20, 2018.
Supreme Court observed:"Upon considering the clear provisions of the University Statute and the Office Order, and decisions of the High Court in cases of similarly placed persons that have been relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the present appeal must be allowed..."
No comments:
Post a Comment