$~57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 09.04.2026 + LPA 243/2026, CM APPL. 22855/2026 & CM APPL. 22856/2026 DR SHIBLI JAMEEL AHMAD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Mr. Nehal Siddiqui and Mr. Manvinder Singh Shekhawat, Advocates.

versus JAMIA HAMDARD (DEEMED UNIVERSITY) .....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 THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA TEJAS KARIA, J. (Oral

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the Appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.02.2026 (“Impugned Judgment”) passed in W.P.(C) 1406/2025 (“Writ Petition”) whereby the Writ Petition seeking direction to the Respondent sought by the Appellant to convert the CPF-cum-Gratuity Scheme (“CPF Scheme”) to the GPF-cum- Pension Scheme (“GPF Scheme”) with consequential pensionary benefits was dismissed.

2. The Appellant was appointed on the post of Lecturer on 28.09.1999 with the Respondent – University and retired as a Professor on 31.07.2025 at the Department of Pharmacology, School of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (SPER) of the Respondent – University.

3. On 10.05.1989, the Respondent – University was granted status of deemed University. Vide office memorandum dated 01.05.1987 (“1987 OM”), the Government of India mandated a switch over from CPF Scheme to GPF Scheme for all CPF beneficiaries in service on 01.01.1986 deeming them to have converted unless they opted to continue with CPF by 30.09.1987 and for employees appointed after 01.01.1986, the GPF Scheme was the default.

4. On 14.09.1996, the Respondent - University issued an office order (“1996 Order”) and pursuant thereto the Appellant submitted his consent on 25.09.1996 for continuation of existing CPF Scheme. However, between 2016 and 2023, the Appellant made several representations to the Respondent – University for changing the option selected from CPF Scheme to GPF Scheme.

5. The representations made by the Appellant were considered by the Finance Committee of the Respondent – University and on 08.03.2018, the Finance Committee rejected the request of the Appellant and other similarly situated employees by observing that the switchover by the employees of CPF Scheme to GPF Scheme would mean a substantial and prolonged financial liability on the Respondent – University and all new appointments are governed by CPF Scheme as a matter of policy.

6. Thereafter, the Appellant sent multiple letters dated 09.08.2023, 22.12.2023 and 18.01.2024 requesting the Respondent – University to convert the option to GPF Scheme. On 05.03.2024, the Appellant submitted a request to the University Grants Commission (“UGC”). However, no action was taken either by the Respondent – University or the UGC. Accordingly, on 08.08.2024, the Appellant filed a RTI application with the Respondent – University seeking information regarding implementation of mandatory GPF Scheme. In the reply dated 23.09.2024, the Respondent – University provided certain documents, which included list of teaching staff with the date of appointment and the Provident Fund Scheme, i.e., CPF or GPF.

7. On 18.11.2024, a legal notice was sent by the Appellant through his Counsel calling upon the Respondent – University to comply with the 1987 OM and requesting change over from CPF Scheme to GPF Scheme.

8. On 23.01.2025, the Appellant preferred the Writ Petition and vide the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition by declining to direct the Respondent – University to covert the Appellant from CPF Scheme to GPF Scheme. Accordingly, the Appellant has filed the present Appeal.

9. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as the learned Counsel for the Respondent University.

10. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Impugned Judgment has erroneously held that 1987 OM do