SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 3364

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Dr. S.K. Pant Professor and others – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
Writ A No. 16734 of 2012 
Decided On : 15-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Alok Mishra, Ishir Sripat, Rahul Sripat (Senior Adv.)
For the Respondents: Amrendra Pratap Singh, C.S.C., Chandan Sharma, Manoj Kumar Singh, Radhey Krishna Pandey, Ram Gopal Tripathi, Ritvik Upadhyay, Shailendra, Shashi Prakash Singh, V.K. Singh.

Employees of autonomous institutions cannot claim pension benefits on par with Central Government employees unless explicitly provided by adopted rules.

Headnote:(A) Indian Societies Registration Act, 1860 - University of Allahabad Act, 2005 - Claim for pension benefits by employees of an autonomous institution after it became a constituent of a Central University - Court found that statutes and rules do not extend pension benefits to petitioners who opted for a Contributory Provident Fund Scheme prior to the applicable cutoff date - Relevant judgments cited include University of Delhi vs. Shashi Kiran and others and ICSSR vs. Neetu Gaur - The petitioners were not entitled to the Pension Scheme as per the Supreme Court's interpretation of the applicable law and cutoff dates, rejecting the claim on factual distinctions. (Paras 5-12)

(B) The Court reiterated the principle that employees of autonomous bodies cannot claim equal treatment with Central Government employees unless explicitly provided by adopted rules or statutes. (Paras 8, 10, 10.4)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners appointed at an autonomous institute sought pension benefits asserting rights after its affiliation as a Central University, while prior claims were dismissed based on the cutoff date of eligibility for a pension plan established by existing rules.

Findings of Court:
The claim was rejected on grounds the petitioners did not comply with the specific pension eligibility rules applicable by their autonomous status and associated cutoff dates for switching pension schemes.

Issues: Whether pension benefits extended to Central University employees apply to the petitioners despite their autonomous institutional status.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court resolved that the autonomy of the institution and the specifics of the date of option for pension benefits created a legal bar to their claims, distinguishing their situation from analogous rulings.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top