$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1406/2025 & CM APPL. 6826/2025 DR. SHIBLI JAMEEL AHMAD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Ms. Nehal Siddiqui, Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat and Mr. Harshwardhan Pushkin Sharma, Advocates.

versus JAMIA HAMDARD .....Respondent Through: Dr. Swaroop George, Mr. Mobashshir Sarwar, Mr. Abhinandan Jain, Mr. Shivam Prajapati, Mr. Abhigyan Dwivedi, Mr. Kartikey and Mr.

Takrim Ahsan Khan, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 10.02.2026

1. This writ petition raises a narrow question with wide consequences: whether an employee of Jamia Hamdard (Deemed University) who, in September 1996, opted to continue under the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) regime can, nearly three decades later, demand a mandatory shift to the General Provident Fund (GPF) with pension by invoking the Government of India Office Memoranda dated 1^st May, 1987. The relief sought is a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to “forthwith convert” the Petitioner’s CPF account into a GPF account, with all consequential pensionary benefits.

Facts in brief:

2. The Petitioner, Dr. Shibli Jameel Ahmad, serves as a faculty member of the Respondent University. He traces his claim to the Office Memoranda dated 1^st May, 1987 issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare. In essence, he reads them as creating a legal fiction by which CPF beneficiaries stood shifted to the pension/GPF regime unless they exercised a positive option to remain in CPF within the stipulated cut-off date.

3. The Respondent University is a deemed to be University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956¹ and asserts that it functions as an aided minority institution. It also asserts that Government of India memoranda on provident fund and pension do not automatically apply to its employees and become relevant only if adopted by the University’s competent bodies.

4. The Petitioner entered regular service pursuant to an offer of appointment dated 20^th September, 1994. The Respondent asserts that, at the time of appointment, the Petitioner was informed that he would be governed by provident fund and gratuity rules enforced in Jamia Hamdard and that he was extended the CPF-cum-gratuity arrangement prevalent in the University.

5. On 14^th September, 1996, the University adopted a GPF-cum-pension- cum-gratuity scheme with effect from 1st October, 1996, on the footing that employees under CPF-cum-gratuity could opt either to continue in CPF or shift to the GPF-pension regime. The Respondent further places on record that the option window was originally up to 31^st October, 1996 and was later extended up to 31^st January, 1997 by a subsequent notification dated 16^th January, 1997.

6. The Petitioner filled the option form dated 25^th September, 1996 and selected continuation under the existing CPF arrangement. The Respondent emphasises that the option was voluntary and routed through the Head of Department.

7. The Petitioner states that he later realised that, in law, the default regime ought to have been GPF/pension, and that the 1996 option was “inadvertent” and, in any event, non-est once the 1987 cut-off had passed. He also asserts that similarly situated employees were treated differently and that his repeated representations (from 2016 onwards) did not yield relief.

8. The Respondent points out that the Finance Committee considered requests for switching from CPF to GPF-pension in its 55^th meeting in March 2018 and did not approve the proposal. It also places on record the asserted pension liability and funding shortfall reflected in its audited financials, and contends that expanding pension coverage would impose an unsustainable burden.

9. Counsel for the Petitioner makes the following submissions in support of the reliefs sought:

9.1 The Petitioner relies upon the Office Memoranda dated 1^st May, 1987 issued by the Government of India pursuant to the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Comm