Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 1187
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.
Suresh Chand Uppal – Appellant
Versus
Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry and Another – Respondents
C.W.P. No. 8462 of 2025
Decided On : 08-09-2025
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Pension and Retirement Benefits
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Delay and Laches - Not absolute bar but in service matters, unexplained delay post-retirement, non-response to opportunities, acceptance of benefits implies acquiescence - Condonation exceptional, not for reopening settled administrative decisions affecting third parties - Distinguishes property acquisition cases. (Paras 4(ii)(a), 4(ii)(b))
(C) Acquiescence - Implies active assent via inaction with knowledge; distinct from mere laches - Prolonged passivity destroys right in service claims. (Para 4(ii)(c))
Facts of the case:
Petitioner retired voluntarily after opting for contributory provident fund scheme, accepted benefits. Offered second chance to switch to general provident fund pension in 2008 via registered letter but neither responded nor deposited employer’s share. First representation 12 years post-retirement; prior writ disposed directing consideration per judgment involving different notification for existing employees.
Findings of Court:
Impugned order rejecting switch upheld; no merit in petition due to delay, laches, acquiescence and factual distinction from cited precedent.
Issues: Whether prior judgment on second opportunity for existing employees applies to post-retirement non-response; whether delay and laches condonable invoking continuing wrong or judicial conscience.
Ratio Decidendi: Facts differ as no similar notification for retirees who failed to opt timely; prolonged inaction post-retirement and acceptance of benefits bars claim under delay, laches, acquiescence doctrines applicable strictly in service jurisprudence to protect finality and third-party rights.
Result: Writ petition dismissed alongwith pending applications.
For the Appellants : Adarsh K. Vashista, Shivom Vashista
For the Respondent: Ramesh Chand Sharma
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner opted for cpf, missed 2008 gpf pension opportunity. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. vipan gupta inapplicable; barred by delay, laches, acquiescence. (Para 4) |
| 3. writ petition dismissed for lack of merit. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT :
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.
1. Petitioner, aged 79 years, seeks to assail order dated 19.06.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by the respondent-Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, District Solan, rejecting his representation for switching over to pension under the GPF Scheme.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.
3. The case:
(i). Respondent-University introduced GPF (Pension) Scheme vide notification dated 25.02.1997. Under the said notification, the University employees including the petitioner were directed to place their options for continuing under the CPF or GPF Scheme. Petitioner opted for the CPF Scheme under the notification dated 25.02.1997. He was accordingly granted the benefit of CPF Scheme. Petitioner retired voluntarily in 2004. He accepted all the benefits granted to him under the CPF Scheme.
(ii). On 18.07.2008, the respondent-University offered one more opportunity to all its existing employees as well as retirees to opt for pension under the GPF/CPF Scheme. A registered letter was also issued to the petitioner after his voluntary retirement, giving him the aforesaid option. It is the stand of the respondent-University that the petitioner did not reply/respond to the letter, thus, impliedly conveying that he wanted to continue under the CPF Scheme. Noteworthy, the petitioner had also not deposited the University’s share of Contributory Provident Fund, which was paid to him on his voluntary retirement into Comptroller’s Account within the stipulated period of three months.
(iii). 12 years after his retirement, petitioner in the year 2016, made a representation to the respondent- University, requesting for switching over to the GPF Pension Scheme. The respondent-University did not accept this representation. This led the petitioner to institute Suresh Chand Uppal Versus Dr. Y.S. Parmar University & Anr. CWP No.9574 of 2023, decided on 26.04.2024. The said writ petition was disposed of on the statement made by petitioner’s learned counsel that petitioner’s case was squarely covered by a decision rendered in Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar HP Krishi Vishvavidyalaya Palampur & Anr. Vs. Vipan Kumar Gupta, LPA No.46 of 2023, decided alongwith connected matters on 17.04.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted in the said writ petition that the petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondents were directed to consider his case in light of the aforesaid judgment. Suresh Chand Uppal was accordingly disposed of on 26.04.2024 with such direction to the respondents. Portion relevant to the context from Suresh Chand Uppal reads as under:-
“2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court on 17.04.2023 in LPA No.46 of 2023 titled as ‘Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar HP Krishi Vishvavidyalaya Palampur & Anr. Vs. Vipan Kumar Gupta’ along with connected matters. He further submits that petitioner shall be content in case the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in a time bound manner in light of judgment ibid.
3. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of without making any comments on the merits of the case of the petitioner. It is directed that respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court on 17.04.2023 in LPA No.46 of 2023 titled as ‘Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar HP Krishi Vishvavidyalaya Palampur & Anr. Vs. Vipan Kumar Gupta’ along with connected matters, within eight weeks from today and will decide the same by passing a speaking order. In case, the petitioner is found similarly situated as petitioner(s) in the above mentioned case, they will also be granted the same benefits as granted to petitioner(
