Non-fulfillment of conditions under the Government Resolution dated 5.2.1980, specifically related to the CPF scheme membership and employer's contribution, led to the dismissal of the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

UNITA AGARWAL, J.

1. Heard Ms. Harshal N. Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Jinesh H. Kapadia, learned counsel for the respondent Institution, as also Ms. Shruti Dhruve, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent-State.

2. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 4473 of 2011, wherein a categorical finding has been returned that the petitioner-appellant herein, who was in-charge principal of the institution concerned, was never a member of CPF scheme, which is one of the pre-conditions for grant of benefits of the Government Resolution dated 5.2.1980.

3. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution dated 5.2.1980 have been extracted in the judgment impugned which are to be noted hereunder:

“1. The contribution made by the institution under their own C.P.F. scheme to the employees of the recognized secondary school voluntarily not receiving grant or the pension contribution to be given under the rules in force at that time, whichever is higher is to be deposited in the Government.

2. If the employees of the recognized non-granted secondary schools have joined the C.P.F. scheme, then the contribution of the Government in that regard is to be deposited in the government treasury. However, the cases falling within the clarifications/provisions made vide Government circular dated 29/05/1974 and resolution dated 31/08/1979 are to be regularized accordingly.”

4. The learned Single Judge has further recorded a finding that the petitioner on his own has deposited certain money by opening a GPF account, whereas contribution of the employer side was never deposited in the GPF account. The GPF account was thus not wholly operational. Further, at some point of time, the petitioner-appellant herein had deposited the employer’s contribution on his own and by realising the mistake later, the amount was withdrawn and GPF account was closed in the year 2008. With regard to the applicability of the Government Resolution dated 5.2.1980, it is recorded in the judgment impugned that in view of clauses 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution dated 5.2.1980, teachers of unaided school would be entitled to pension in case they are members of the CPF scheme or the like schemes, wherein contribution from the salary of the employee and that of the employer is refunded to the State Government to make pension scheme applicable to such individual employee.

5. As in the instant case, neither the contribution of the employee was deducted from its salary by the school for deposit the same in the CPF scheme or any other scheme nor the school itself has deposited its part of the contribution. In the said eventuality, there was no question of deposit of such contributions with the State Government and since the conditions of the Government Resolution dated 5.2.1980 as contained in clauses 1 and 2 are not fulfilled, the petitioner-appellant herein cannot be said to be covered by the same.

6. This finding returned by the learned Single Judge could not be assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is, however, sought to be argued that it was the duty of the school to deduct the contribution towards the CPF scheme from the employee’s salary, as also to deposit its contribution. For the failure of the school management to comply with the conditions of clauses 1 and 2 of the Government Resolution dated 5.2.1980, the petitioner-appellant herein cannot be made to suffer. On further finding about the fraud committed by the petitioner-appellant herein in filling up the form for deposits in the GPF account, which was meant for the employees/staff of the recognised and aided Institution, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was simply a format and there was no clarity nor there was any indication that the said form was meant only for the teachers of recognised and aided Institution. It, therefore, cannot be sa