* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on : 04.04.2024 Judgment pronounced on : 10.04.2024 + W.P.(C) 8583/2015 NEERJA TIKU .... Petitioner versus SCHOOL OF PLANNING AND ARCHITECTURE & ANR ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Senior Advocate with Mr. Lokesh Bharadwaj, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Mr. Ashish and Mr. Monu Kumar, Advocates.

For the Respondent : Mr. S.K. Bhaduri, Mr. Prem Prakash, Mr.

Sumit Kumar and Ms. Sneh Lata Jha, Advocates for R-1.

Ms. Bharathi Raju, Senior Panel Counsel for R-2 and R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

J U D G M E N T

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

“In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, this Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to issue an appropriate writ of certiorari thereby quashing the Impugned Communication dated 22.04.2015 and be further kind enough to issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondent No. 1 to grant the benefit to the Petitioner under GPF cum Pension cum Gratuity Scheme instead of CPF cum Gratuity scheme.”

2. The facts germane to the present dispute are as under:-

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P. (C) 8583/2015 Page 1 of 25 (a) The petitioner had joined respondent no.1 – School of Planning and Architecture (hereinafter referred to as ‘SPA’) on 01.08.1980. At the time of joining, the terms and conditions of employment were stated to have been governed by the Contributory Provident Fund cum Gratuity Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “CPF Scheme”).

(b) By Circular dated 01.05.1987, the respondent no.2 had floated an option to its employees to exercise an option to either continue under the then existing CPF Scheme or to change over to General Provident Fund cum Pension cum Gratuity Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “Pension Scheme”). Pursuant to the Circular dated 01.05.1987, respondent no.1/SPA had also issued a Circular dated 17.08.1987 incorporating such procedure for exercising an option by its employees, within a stipulated time. The said option was to be exercised on or before the cutoff date i.e. 30.09.1987. In case no such option is exercised, the Circular provided that such employees would be deemed to have switched over to the Pension Scheme, which option would be treated as final.

(c) The petitioner is stated to have submitted her option after the cut-off date, on 07.12.1987, whereby she submitted her option to continue with the CPF Scheme, instead of the GPF cum Pension Scheme.

(d) The aforesaid state of affairs continued until the judgement dated 30.04.2014 was delivered by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 5631/2010 titled as N.C. Bakshi Versus Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P. (C) 8583/2015 Page 2 of 25 Union of India and Others, reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2798, which was tagged along with other batch of writ petitions.

(e) By a representation dated 20.02.2015, the petitioner requested that in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in N.C. Bakshi (supra), the petitioner would be deemed to have been automatically covered under the Pension Scheme.

(f) By the impugned communication dated 22.04.2015, the respondent no.1 rejected the representation of the petitioner dated 20.02.2015 and informed the petitioner that since she had specifically stated vide her letter dated 07.12.1987 that she would like to continue under the CPF Scheme instead of GPF cum Pension Scheme, the request for change over now cannot be acceded to, having once been accepted by the respondent.

(g) Earlier also, the matter of such employees who in 1987 opted to continue under the CPF Scheme, and later had sought change over from CPF Scheme to GPF cum Pension Scheme was placed before the Finance Committee of respondent no.1, which referred the matter to the Ministry of Human Resource Development for clarification.

(h) The Mi