Employee Who Continued Under CPF Scheme Can’t Claim Parity With One Who Didn’t: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Pension Under CCS Rules

A group of former employees, legal heirs of former employees, of the Export Inspection Council (EIC) and its Export Inspection Agencies (EIAs), approached the High Court contending that they were denied pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, despite serving in an establishment to which, according to them, that regime had been extended.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held, “Once the case is seen in that light, the Petitioners’ reliance on the principles of equality under the Constitution also loses force. There can be no parity between persons who are not similarly placed in fact or in law. An employee who continued under the CPF scheme cannot claim parity with one who did not. An employee who took a special voluntary retirement package cannot claim parity with one who retired on superannuation in the ordinary course.”

Advocate S.P. Saxena represented the Petitioner, while Central Govt Senior Counsel Archana Gaur represented the Respondent.

Arguments

The Petitioners’ case was founded on the ground that with the framing of the Export Inspection Council Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1981, read with the Memorandum, employees in service on the relevant date stood brought under the pension regime unless they consciously elected to remain under the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme. The 1981 Rules were said to incorporate and extend the CCS (Pension) Rules within the organisational framework. It was further contended that, following the statutory changes of the mid-1980s, the CPF regime itself stood replaced and did not survive except to the extent of past accruals. The Petitioners thus pleaded that none of them exercised any option to continue under CPF and they must be treated as having been governed by the pension regime.

The respondents submitted that the employees of the EIC and EIAs were not government servants as such, and that their service conditions were governed by a distinct framework under the CPF scheme. It was further contended that the present writ petition, instituted in 2021, suffers from considerable delay.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that where the governing scheme deems an employee to have come under pension regime unless he opts to remain under CPF, the legal fiction must be given due effect and this principle applies only to those who did not exercise a valid option. “It cannot be invoked to negate an option that has, in fact, been exercised. On the present record, the Petitioners have not crossed that threshold”, it added.

The Bench noticed that both regimes i.e. PF contribution in the case of those governed by the CPF scheme, and pension as per rules in the case of those governed by the 1981 Rules, continued to be recognised, with benefits structured according to the governing scheme applicable to each employee.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench found that the service relationship of the Petitioners ended at different points between 1991 and 2015. Those who were retrenched accepted the compensation and terminal payments then offered. Those who retired on superannuation did so years ago. Those who exited under the special scheme accepted that package. The petition was instituted in 2021, and the intervening representations of 2020 and 2021 did not alter that position. “Repeated representations do not revive a dead or stale claim, nor do they furnish a fresh cause of action where the underlying grievance had long since crystallised”, it added.

The Petitioners pointed to service conditions and the CCS (Pension) Rules having been adopted within the organisation’s governing framework. On this aspect, the Bench stated, “Even assuming, in the Petitioners’ favour, that the pension regime stood extended in principle to employees of EIC/EIAs, the Petitioners must still establish that they were governed by that regime and did not elect to remain outside it. On the record, they have failed to do so.” Referring to those Petitioners who were retrenched in 1991, the Bench noted that they accepted the terminal benefits then offered, including retrenchment compensation and related dues, and allowed the position to stand for decades. “The present attempt is to reopen that chapter by reading the 1991 documents as though they conferred an unqualified right to pension regardless of the governing regime of the employee concerned”, it added.

Coming to those who later retired on superannuation, the Bench held that their claim failed because the Respondents produced option forms showing continuance under the CPF scheme, and the Petitioners had not furnished a satisfactory answer to those forms. The Bench also found that the claim of those who left under the special voluntary retirement route was weaker as the scheme was a one-time special package and the benefits thereunder were quantified and released.

Thus, holding that the Petitioners failed to establish any enforceable right to the mandamus claimed, the Bench dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Debasis Das Gupta v. Union of India (Case No.: W.P.(C) 6807/2021)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate S.P. Saxena

Respondent: Central Govt Senior Counsel Archana Gaur, Advocates Ridhima Gaur, Deepu Kumar, L.R Khatana

Click here to read/download Order