The Delhi High Court has dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed upholding the refusal to convert his Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme to the General Provident Fund (GPF)-cum-pension scheme, and affirming that an exercised option cannot be reversed after decades of acquiescence.
The appellant, who served as a Lecturer since 1999 and retired as a Professor in 2025 from Jamia Hamdard (Deemed University), had sought conversion to the pension regime relying on the Government of India’s 1987 Office Memorandum (OM), which provided for a deemed switch from CPF to GPF unless an employee opted out. His writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge, leading to the present appeal.
The Division Bench, however, found no merit in the challenge. It noted that the University had consistently denied the applicability of the 1987 OM, and there was no material on record to establish that the OM governed the institution. Crucially, the Court emphasized that under the University’s 1996 Order, employees were expressly given an option regarding their provident fund scheme. The appellant had consciously opted to continue under the CPF scheme on 25 September 1996.
Distinguishing the 1987 OM framework, the Court observed that while the OM contemplated a deemed switch in the absence of an option, the 1996 Order operated on an explicit choice-based system. This distinction was held to be determinative, with the Court concluding that the appellant’s case was governed by a voluntary and conscious selection rather than a default rule.
The Bench further noted that even when a subsequent opportunity was granted in January 1997 to revise options, the appellant did not avail of it. His first request for conversion came only in 2016 nearly two decades later which was rejected by the University on financial and policy grounds. The Court held that such belated attempts could not undo a settled position.
Rejecting reliance on precedents such as Shashi Kiran and Manoj Pant, the Court clarified that those decisions dealt with situations where no option had been exercised within the stipulated time, leading to a deemed shift to the pension scheme. In contrast, the present case involved a valid and timely exercise of option by the appellant. Therefore, parity with those cases was held to be misplaced.
On the issue of delay, the Court found the explanation of continuous representations unconvincing, highlighting the absence of any action between 1996 and 2016 and the filing of the writ petition only in 2025, just prior to retirement. It upheld the finding of delay and laches as a valid ground to decline relief.
Ultimately, the Court concurred with the Single Judge that the 1987 OM was inapplicable to the respondent University and that the appellant, having exercised his option and acquiesced for nearly 20 years, could not seek reversal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Mr. Nehal Siddiqui and Mr. Manvinder Singh Shekhawat, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Dr. Swaroop George, Mr. Mobashshir Sarwar, Mr. Abhinandan Jain, Mr. Shivam Prajapati, Mr. Abhigyan Dwivedi, Mr. Kartikey and Mr. Takrim Ahsan Khan, Advocates
