Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 49901
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. Asha, J
V. Vaidiyanathan – Appellant
Versus
Salim Ali Center For Ornithology And Natural History – Respondent
WP No. 15789 of 2025 | WP No. 5613 of 2025
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Pensionary Benefits
Act Referred
Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972
Income Tax Act, 1962: S.80-C
Societies Registration Act, 1860
Provident Fund Act, 1925
Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986
Headnote
(B) Service Law - Estoppel - Appointment letter terms - Stipulation in appointment order regarding specific pension scheme does not preclude employee from claiming superior benefits under constitutional rights or legal fictions established by government memos (Paras 38, 41)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme following the merger of an autonomous society into a governmental institute. The petitioners had been appointed to the society prior to the introduction of the National Pension System. Their request for coverage under the Old Pension Scheme was rejected by the authorities, primarily on the ground that the society's Contributory Provident Fund rules governed their service, and they were not central government servants at the time of appointment.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that the society functions as an arm of the State under Article 12, and its Contributory Provident Fund scheme lacked statutory recognition. Consequently, the employees were held to be governed by the regulations applicable to central government servants. The court held that the denial of pensionary benefits to these employees, while extended to others similarly placed, amounted to discrimination.
Issues: The main issues were whether employees of an autonomous society could claim the Old Pension Scheme upon merger with a central institute and whether terms in an initial appointment letter regarding the Contributory Provident Fund estop an employee from seeking pension coverage.
Ratio Decidendi: An autonomous body controlled by the government is considered an instrumentality of the State. Employees of such bodies are entitled to the same pensionary benefits as government servants when their specific pension fund lacks legal recognition. Administrative notifications extending pension options apply to such employees, and individual appointment clauses cannot override fundamental rights against discrimination.
Result: Writ petitions allowed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sundar Narayan
For the Respondents: A.R.L. Sundaresan, G.Babu
COMMON ORDER
1.Since the facts necessary for disposing of the above Writ Petitions are common to both the Writ Petitions, a common order is being pronounced.
2. WP.No.5613 of 2025 has been filed for the following reliefs:-
“Call for the records of the 1st Respondent in F.No WII / SACON /ADMIN / 2023 dated 28.4.2023 read with SACON / FIN / 33 / 2023-24 / 280 dated 7.9.2023, quash the same and direct the Respondents to convent the Provident Fund Scheme applicable to the petitioner form the SACON Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to the General Provident Fund (GPF) and grant pension in accordance with the central Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1972 after adjusting the sums standing to the credit of the contributory Fund Account of the petitioner representing the 1st Respondents contribution.”
3. WP.No.15781 of 2025 has been filed for the following reliefs:-
“to call for the records of the 1st respondent in Office Memorandum in WII- SACON /CPF-NPS/ 2024- 2025 dated 18.2.2025 read with No.WII / ADM / 2025/ 14 dated 28.3.2025 and clause Xiii of the merger order dated 25.4.2023 in F.No. FC- 11/172/ 2022- DGF in so far as it restricts the entitlement of permanent employees in SACON which has since merged with WII to either CPF or the NPS Scheme, quash the same and direct the Respondents to convert the Provident Fund Scheme Applicable to the petitioner from the SACON Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to the General Provident Fund (GPF) and grant pension under the old Pension Scheme in accordance with the central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 after adjusting the sums standing to the credit of the Contributory Fund Account of the Petitioner representing the 1st Respondents subscription.”
5. It is the case of the petitioner in WP.No.15789 of 2025 that he was appointed as a Stenographer Grade ‘D’ in the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service (CSSS) Cadre under the Department of Rural Development, Government of India, on 24.09.1991, and served therein till 1999. In August 1998, the 1st respondent issued a notification inviting applications for the post of Personal Assistant to the Director. The petitioner had applied on 31.08.1998 and was called for an interview on 24.11.1998. Pursuant thereto, by letter dated 24.01.1999, he was offered appointment to the said post and placed on probation for a period of two years. The petitioner had accepted the offer on 15.02.1999, and an appointment order dated 22.02.1999 was issued appointing him as Personal Assistant to the Director in the pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500 with a basic pay of Rs.6500/-. The appointment order indicated that the petitioner would be entitled to draw allowances like, Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance and Contributory Pension Fund (hereinafter referred to as the “CPF”) and it was also specified that the condition of service would be governed by the Rules of the 1st respondent. By proceedings dated 12.06.2001, the petitioner was declared to have successfully completed probation, and he continued in service in the said post till his retirement on 31.03.2025. As there were no promotional avenues available to the petitioner, he was granted financial upgradations in the years 2009 and 2019.
6. The petitioner in W.P. No. 5613 of 2025 was initially employed with the Bombay Natural History Society and upon a vacancy arising in the first respondent organisation, he had applied for the post of Scientist (Ecotoxicology) on 15.06.1992. He was called for an interview on 22.08.1992 and, by letter dated 24.08.1992, was offered temporary appointment to the said post in the pay scale of Rs.3000-100-3500-125-4000, together with admissible allowances. The appointment order indicated that the petitioner would be entitled to draw allowances like, Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance and CPF and it was also specified that the condition of service would be governed by the Rules of the 1st respondent. The petitioner accepted the offer of appointment and joined duty on 26.08.1992. By pr
