$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 19.01.2026 % Judgment delivered on: 07.04.2026 + LPA 391/2021 & CM APPL. 37850/2021 EXPORT INSPECTION COUNCIL .....Appellant Through: Mr. L.R. Khatana, Advocate.

versus DEEPAK SHEKHAR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kripa Shankar Prasad and Mohd.

Ainul Ansari, Mr. M. K. Goyal, Mr.Harsh Jain, Advs. for R-1 and 3.

Mr. Sushil Kr. Pandey, S.P.C. for R-

2/UOI.

+ LPA 392/2021 & CM APPL. 37893/2021 EXPORT INSPECTION COUNCIL .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv. with Mr. L. R. Khatana, Mr. Ankit Tiwari, Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advs.

versus RAJIV RAIZADA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kripa Shankar Prasad and Mohd.

Ainul Ansari, Mr. M. K. Goyal, Mr.Harsh Jain, Advs.

+ LPA 396/2021 & CM APPL. 37893/2021 EXPORT INSPECTION COUNCIL .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv. with Mr. L. R. Khatana, Mr. Ankit Tiwari, Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advs.

versus ANAND KISHORE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kripa Shankar Prasad, Mohd. A.

Ansari, Mr. Manoj Kr. Goyal, Mr.Harsh Jain, Advs. for R-1.

Mr. Sushil Kr. Pandey, S.P.C. for R-

2/UOI.

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

J U D G M E N T

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J.

1. These three intra-Court appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 05.07.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge whereby W.P.(C) 6747/2014, W.P.(C) 8601/2010 & W.P.(C) 3426/2012 have been allowed and it has been held that the employees of the Export Inspection Council – appellant, who had instituted the proceedings of the writ petitions would be deemed to have switched over to the pension scheme and as such are entitled to the benefits thereunder on the date of their retirement. The learned Single Judge has also directed that the employees shall refund the employer’s contribution to Contributory Provident Fund (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPF’) received by them with interest @ 8% per annum and the appellant shall compute the pension and arrears, if any, after making adjustment which shall be paid to the employees thereafter, but without any interest.

2. Since, all the three appeals challenge the same judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and raise similar questions of law, they have been heard together and are being decided by the common judgment which follows:

3. The issue in these appeals centers around a circular dated 02.07.1987 issued by the Export Inspection Council (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Council’) which has been established under Section 3 of Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The said circular dated 02.07.1987 refers to a decision of Government of India while accepting the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission on Pension, whereby it was decided that employees of the Central Government who were still governed by the CPF scheme shall be given option to continue to remain in the said scheme vide circular dated 01.05.1987. The circular further mentions that the Council, with the approval of the Ministry, has decided to extend the said benefit on the same terms and conditions as is stipulated by the Government of India to the employees who are governed by the CPF Scheme of the Export Inspection Council/ Agencies.

4. The said circular dated 02.07.1987 embodies salient features of the scheme and provides that all those who are governed by the CPF Scheme, who were in service as on 01.01.1986 and who were still in service on the date of issue of the circular i.e. 02.07.1987, would be deemed to have come over to Export Inspection Council, Pension and General Provident Rules, 1981 as notified by the Ministry on 24.10.1981. It also mentions that such employees would have an option to continue to remain under the CPF Scheme if they so desired. It further provides that the option would have to be exercised and conveyed to the concerned head of the office by

31.10.1987 in the format which formed part of the circular. The said circula