* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 05.04.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 16.04.2025 + W.P.(C) 8170/2023 & CM APPL. 34087/2023 DR. (MRS.) SHARDA ARYA .....Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amartya Bhushan and Mr. Yojit Mehra, Advocates.

For the Respondents : Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Mr. Hardik Rupal and Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra, Advocates for R-3/University of Delhi.

Mr. Ravikesh K. Sinha, Advocate for R-

4/UGC.

Mr. Ankur Chibber and Mr. Anshuman Mehrotra, Advocates for R-5/College.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

J U D G M E N T

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking inter alia the following reliefs:-

Signature Not VeWrif.iePd.(C) 8170/2023 Page 1 of 26 Digitally Signed “i. Quash the letter dated 10.03.2023 of the Respondent no.3 not granting the pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

ii. Pass an appropriate writ/order/direction declaring the petitioners to have come over to the Pension Scheme w.e.f 01.10.1987 in compliance of office memorandum dated 01.05.1987 of the Respondent No. 1, they having not exercised option to the contrary by 30.09.1987.

iii. Pass any other order that is deemed fit and proper under facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The petitioner was a faculty at respondent no.5 – Daulat Ram College, University of Delhi, having joined service on 08.12.1965 and retired on 28.02.1994 on attaining the age of 60 years and then finally left the service on 19.02.1999 after re-employment.

3. The respondent no.1 vide its Memorandum no.4/1/87.PIC-1 dated 01.05.1987, while accepting the recommendations of 4^th Central Pay Commission, had directed that all the central government employees who were in service on 01.01.1986 and were still in service would be deemed to have come over to the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the “Pension Scheme”) on that date unless they specifically opt to continue under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “CPF Scheme”). As per Clause 3 of the said Memorandum, all the CPF beneficiaries who were in service on 01.01.1986 and who are still in service on the date of issue of these orders would be deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme. It was also stipulated that the employees of the category mentioned above would, however, have the option to continue under the CPF Scheme, if they so desire. It noted that the option to continue under the CPF Scheme would have to be exercised and Signature Not VeWrif.iePd.(C) 8170/2023 Page 2 of 26 Digitally Signed conveyed to the concerned Head of Office by the cutoff date i.e., 30.09.1987. It further noted that if no option is received by the Head of Office by the said cutoff date, the employees would be deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme.

4. The respondent no.3 – University of Delhi vide its notification dated 22.05.1987 had adopted the recommendations of the 4^th CPC and the abovementioned Office Memorandum of respondent no.1 dated 01.05.1987.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that she does not recall if she had exercised a positive option to remain in the CPF Scheme back in 1987. However, upon retirement, she received the pensionary benefits as per the CPF Scheme. It is the case of the petitioner that her right has been crystallized by the judgement of the Supreme Court in University of Delhi vs. Shashi Kiran & Ors., reported in (2022) 15 SCC 325, allowing the switch over to the Pension Scheme.

6. To implement the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shashi Kiran (supra), the respondent no.3/University of Delhi issued a letter no.Fin/Pen.Cell/CPF-GPF/SLP/2022 dated 06.06.2022 to all its constituent colleges. The relevant paragraphs of the said letter read as follows-

“(4) As directed by the Hon'ble Apex C