Back
Supreme Court Rejects Retired NIRD Professor's Claim for GPF Pension After 2012 Regularisation
The has dismissed a filed by a retired professor of the who sought to be covered under the instead of the . A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that the petitioner, K. Suman Chandra, was bound by the terms of his 2012 , which expressly continued his CPF coverage and which he never challenged.
A
Chandra was initially appointed as a Research Associate at NIRD on a contractual basis in 1984 and was placed under the CPF Scheme from the outset. His services were regularised in 1985, and he subsequently held several positions, including Assistant Director and Deputy Director. In 2007, he was appointed Professor on a contractual basis, and his services as Professor were regularised by Office Order No. 98 dated . The order contained two crucial conditions: regularisation would take effect from the date of the order itself, and his services would continue to be governed by the existing CPF Scheme.
Chandra retired on , and received his —including NIRD’s contribution to his CPF account—on . Only after retirement did he approach the , Hyderabad, seeking a declaration that his continued coverage under the CPF Scheme was illegal and contrary to the and the .
The Precedent That Sealed the Fate
Chandra’s case was closely tied to that of his colleague, Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma, whose services were also regularised by the same order. Sharma had earlier obtained a favourable order from the CAT, which was upheld by the High Court. Relying on that, CAT allowed Chandra’s application in July 2019.
However, in (decided on ), the Supreme Court set aside the orders in Sharma’s favour. It held that the regularisation under the 2012 order operated from the date of the order and did not to the date of initial appointment. Since the conditions of the order—including continued CPF coverage—were never challenged, Sharma remained entitled only to CPF benefits.
High Court's Rejection and Supreme Court's Affirmation
When NIRD challenged CAT’s order in Chandra’s case, the applied the Sharma precedent and dismissed Chandra’s claim. The High Court noted that Chandra had approached the CAT only after retirement and after accepting CPF benefits.
Before the Supreme Court, Chandra’s counsel attempted to distinguish his case from Sharma’s, but the bench found no distinguishing features. The Court emphasised that Chandra’s contained identical conditions to Sharma’s, and that Chandra had never challenged those terms during his service or after receiving benefits.
Key Observations
The Supreme Court made the following key observations:
“The petitioner's case is based on Office Order No. 98 dated by which the services of Academic Staff working on contractual basis were regularised. By the said Office Order, the services of the petitioner as Professor on contractual basis were regularised subject to various terms and conditions, which included the order of regularisation taking effect from the date of the said order as well as services being continued to be governed by the existing CPF Scheme.”
“The terms and conditions of regularisation stipulated in the Office Order dated were not challenged by the petitioner at any point of time.”
“Having accepted the terms and conditions for regularisation of services on the post of Professor and the grievance in this regard having been raised post-retirement after accepting benefits under the CPF Scheme, the petitioner was rightly by the High Court.”
Final Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that Chandra’s case was squarely covered by the Sharma precedent and found no reason to exercise jurisdiction under . The was dismissed, upholding the ’s decision. The ruling reinforces the principle that employees who accept the terms of their regularisation without protest, and later accept benefits under those terms, cannot seek to renegotiate their pension coverage after retirement.
