JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Petitioners were admittedly appointed on different posts in an autonomous institution registered under the provisions of Indian Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1860”), namely, Govind Ballabh Pant Social Science Institute, Allahabad and being an autonomous institution it’s finances were catered jointly by Government of India (through ICSSR) and Government of Uttar Pradesh.

2. In the year 2005 the University of Allahabad was conferred status of a Central University and vide Section 3 0(5) 1, 2 and 3 of University of Allahabad Act, 2005 it was adopted as constituent institution of University of Allahabad.

3. Now the petitioners are claiming that by virtue of becoming a constituent institution of University of Allahabad they are entitled for all benefits granted to Central University employees including the benefit of pension, i.e., to provide General Provident Fund Scheme instead of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.

4. The claim of petitioners were considered and rejected by University Grants Commission that old scheme under CCS Pension Rules is not available to any new entry and since Govind Ballabh Pant Social Science Institute, Allahabad was an autonomous body, therefore, despite it is a constituent institution of Allahabad University, CCS Rules were not applied to it.

5. Sri Alok Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners have not been granted benefit of pension scheme whereas other employees who have been appointed before the cut off date of 2005 of University are getting benefit of pension. Learned counsel refers the judgment passed by Supreme Court in University of Delhi vs. Shashi Kiran and others (2022)15 SCC 325 and Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) vs. Neetu Gaur and others, 2025 INSC 374 that the claim of petitioners be considered and they be granted benefit of pension scheme.

6. Per contra, Sri Ritvik Upadhyay, Sri Chandan Sharma, Sri R.K. Pandey and Sri Anil Kumar Singh, Advocates for respondents have supported the impugned order that only by virtue of being a constituent institution, petitioners cannot be granted benefit of pension scheme. They further submitted that even the Central Civil Service Rules are applicable to petitioners it would not be considered that they are entitled for pension also since both have different manner of applicability.

7. I have considered the above submissions and perused the material on record.

8. A similar controversy was considered by this Court in the case of Priyankar Upadhyaya vs. Union of India and others , 2025:AHC:37820 wherein a claim of retired teaching and non-teaching employees of Banaras Hindu University to become beneficiary of General Provident Fund-cum-Pension Scheme was rejected by a reasoned order and for reference the relevant part of judgment is reproduced hereinafter:

“20. I have heard learned counsel for parties at length and perused the material available on record.

21. The factual aspect of the case which appears to be undisputed is that the Union of India has issued Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 that CPF beneficiaries who were in service on 01.01.1986 and were still in service on the date of issue of Office Memorandum i.e., 01.05.1987 will be deemed to come over in GPF-cum-Pension Scheme, except they have exercised their option to remain in CPF Scheme by 30.09.1987 and interpretation of said Office Memorandum as held by Supreme Court in University of Delhi vs. Smt. Shashi Kiran (supra) so far as case of present petitioners is concerned, is that any option given subsequent to cut off date, i.e., 30.09.1987 to remain in CPF Scheme, would be non-est and according to petitioners since they have not given their option on or before 30.09.1987, therefore, they deemed to have come over to GPF- cum-Pension Scheme despite admittedly they have given option after said date. Court has to consider effect of dates of adoption of Scheme by Banaras Hindu Universi