Once High Court Granted Relief To Similarly Placed Persons, It Ought Not To Have Dismissed Professor’s Petition: Supreme Court Grants Retiral Benefits Under General Provident Fund Scheme
The Appeal before the Apex Court arose from an order of the Patna High Court dismissing the appellant’s request to be included in the University’s General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of a former Professor of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University and directed that he be provided retiral benefits under the General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme. The Aepx Court took note of the fact that the High Court had granted relief to similarly placed persons.
The Appeal before the Apex Court arose from an order of the Patna High Court dismissing the appellant’s writ appeal against the single judge’s order 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.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra said, “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.”
AOR Anand Shankar Jha represented the Appellant while AOR Surinder Kumar Gupta represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
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, 19761. There were two schemes of retirement benefits. The first was the Contributory Provident Fund, which employees must opt for and which disentitles employees from receiving pension and General Provident Fund. Another one was the General Provident Fund, pension, and gratuity for those employees who did not opt for the Contributory Provident Fund.
The appellant did not submit his option to opt into the Contributory Provident Fund within the time stipulated in Clause (II) of the Office Order. On finding that his name was not included in the list published by the University in this scheme, he preferred a writ petition before the High Court to be included under the scheme for pension, gratuity, and General Provident Fund on superannuation. During the pendency of this writ petition, the appellant superannuated in 2019. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, reasoning that the appellant did not opt for these retiral benefits despite being given the option in 1990, 1995, 1996 and 2008. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
Referring to Chapter 16 of the University Statute, the Bench observed that 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. Further reference was made to the Office Order, which was issued to implement the provisions of Chapter 16 of the University Statute, which allowed the employees to opt for two kinds of Contributory Provident Fund Schemes.
Noting that 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”, the Bench said, “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.”
It was further noticed by the Bench that the High Court had taken note of this position while disposing of the writ petitions with similar prayers by other employees of the respondent university. Reference was made to the judgment in Arjun Kumar v. State of Bihar and ors (2012), where 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.
The Bench further noted that the High Court ought not to have dismissed the appellant’s writ petition once it granted relief to similarly placed persons. On a perusal of the University Statutes and the Office Order, the Bench noted that the appellant was entitled to the retiral benefits under the General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cumgratuity scheme.
Allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court 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”, it concluded.
Cause Title: Mukesh Prasad Singh v. The Then Rajendra Agricultural University (Now Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University) & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 312)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Anand Shankar Jha, Advocates Meenakshi Devgan, Abhilekh Tiwari, Sachin Mintri, Parvez Rahman, Shubhank Sharma
Respondent: AOR Surinder Kumar Gupta, Advocates Udit Gupta, Shailender Singh, Davesh Sharma, AOR Samir Ali Khan
