HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA + Writ Petition No. 13100 of 2014 % Date: 23.12.2024 # Prof. Sharika Nandan Kaul & others … Petitioners v.

$ Union of India rep. by Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Dept.of Pensioners’ Welfare, New Delhi.

… Respondents ! Counsel for petitioners : Dr. P.B. Vijay Kumar ^ Counsel for 1^st respondent : Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General Counsel for 4th respondent : Sri Ramesh Babu Vishwanathula Counsel for Respondents 5 & 6 : M/s Indus Law Firm < GIST:

 HEAD NOTE:

? CASES REFERRED:

1. (2006) 12 SCC 53

2. (2022) 15 SCC 325

3. 2022 SCC Online Del 520 4. 2024 SCC Online Del 2677 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 13100 OF 2014

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed to declare that petitioners are entitled to the benefits of Pension Scheme under the provisions of the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 01-05-1987, ignoring any subsequent circulars or options provided by the respondents contrary to the original Office Memorandum. They also seek a direction to extend the benefits under the Pension Scheme in accordance with the Hon’ble Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. S.L. Verma¹ or, alternatively, to grant them the opportunity to opt into the Pension Scheme as was done for similarly-placed employees in other institutions.

2. Petitioners assert that they joined the 5th Respondent - University in various teaching and non-teaching roles across different departments. At the time of joining, they participated in the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme as per the Regulations then prevailing. On 01-05-1987, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pensions and Pensioners' Welfare (1st respondent) issued OM No. 4/1/87-PIC-I introducing a Pension (2006) 12 SCC 53 Scheme and allowing employees to switch from the CPF Scheme to the new Pension Scheme, with a cut-off date for opting into the Pension Scheme set as 30-09-1987.

Petitioners state that they did not exercise their option to remain in CPF Scheme as per Office Memorandum before the cut-off date. Consequently, they contend that they should have been deemed to have switched to the Pension Scheme by the cut-off date, in line with the provisions of the impugned Memorandum. Despite this, the 5^th respondent - University continued to place petitioners in CPF Scheme, contrary to the stipulations of the Office Memorandum, resulting in denial of Pension Scheme benefits. The University issued circulars dated 14-12-1987, 31-01-1988 and 10-02-1988, giving employees option to switch to Pension Scheme or remain in CPF Scheme, with the final deadline extended to 29-02-1988. Subsequently, the Executive Council of the University extended the option deadline to 15-11-1990. Petitioners argue that these circulars were issued without the approval of the 1st respondent and are therefore, legally invalid. Despite repeated representations, the University failed to respond adequately. Petitioners submitted representation dated 04-07-2013, after which the University stated that it was unaware of the impugned Memorandum dated 01-05-1987 and had exercised options independently. They contend further that this response is contrary to the legal precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners Dr. P.B.Vijay Kumar submits that University’s actions violated the terms of the Memorandum and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L. Verma’s case (supra).

Learned counsel cites examples of similar institutions, such as Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics (IUCAA), where employees were allowed to opt into Pension Scheme and submits that University’s refusal to extend the same benefit to his clients is discriminatory. He relied on the judgment in University of Delhi v. Shashi Kiran, [(2022) 15 SCC 325] and that of Delhi High Court in LPA No. 410 of 2014, dated 24.08.2016. Further, Delhi High Court extended t