The Delhi High Court has reiterated that for the employees who exercise the option of continuing with the CPF Scheme after the cut-off date, such exercise would be non est in law, and the employee would be deemed to have come over to the GPF cum Pension Scheme.

In that context, the Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela specified that, "it is clear that for those of the employees who had not exercised the option before the cut-off date i.e., 30.09.1987 and had opted beyond that date, such exercise of option would be non est in law. Meaning thereby, if the option was not exercised before the cut-off date or exercised after the cut-off date, the deeming provision of coming over to the GPF cum Pension Scheme would be applicable to the employees, in both the cases."

Senior Counsel Rakesh Tiku, along with others, appeared for the petitioner, while Senior Panel Counsel Bharathi Raju, along with others, appeared for the respondents.

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the quashing of a communication dated 22.04.2015 and a mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to grant her benefits under the GPF cum Pension cum Gratuity Scheme instead of the CPF cum Gratuity scheme.

The petitioner, an employee of the School of Planning and Architecture (SPA), exercised an option to continue under the CPF Scheme after the cut-off date of 30.09.1987. Later, the petitioner sought to be deemed covered under the GPF cum Pension Scheme instead.

However, her request was rejected by SPA, citing her previous choice to continue under the CPF Scheme. The petitioner argued that her option should be considered non-existent in law as it was submitted after the cut-off date. She relied on a Supreme Court judgment to support her contention. The respondents argued that the Supreme Court's ruling only applied to University of Delhi employees and not SPA employees. They also claimed that the petitioner's delay in raising the issue and her informed decision to opt for the CPF Scheme barred her from seeking relief.

The Apex Court observed that, "it is clear that the petitioner had exercised the option to continue with the CPF Scheme on 07.12.1987, which was beyond the cut-off date 30.09.1987. The exercise of such option... would be non est in law, in which case, the deeming provision of the O.M. dated 01.05.1987 should be given its logical conclusion. In that, the petitioner would be deemed to have come over to the GPF cum Pension Scheme."

Subsequently, the petition was allowed.

Appearances:

Petitioner: Senior Counsel Rakesh Tiku, Counsels Lokesh Bharadwaj, Sandeep Kumar, Ashish, Monu Kumar

Respondents: Counsels SK Bhaduri, Prem Prakash, Sumit Kumar, Sneh Lata Jha, Senior Panel Counsel Bharathi Raju

Cause Title: Neerja Tiku vs School of Planning and Architecture & Anr.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Delhi High CourtJustice Tushar Rao GedelaSchool of Planning and Architecture

Verdictum News Desk