The Supreme Court has refused to extend General Provident Fund-cum-Pension Scheme benefits to a retired National Institute of Rural Development (NIRD) professor who had sought to replace his existing coverage under the Central Provident Fund Scheme.
A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed the petition, finding that the professor had accepted the conditions attached to his regularisation and had challenged them only after retirement, despite already receiving retirement benefits under the CPF Scheme.
The dispute traces back to the professor’s initial appointment as a contractual Research Associate at NIRD in 1984. He was covered by the CPF Scheme at that stage, and his services were regularised the following year.
He subsequently moved through several positions, becoming Assistant Director in 1992, Deputy Director in 1999 and, eventually, Professor on a contractual basis in 2007. His appointment as Professor was regularised in 2012.
That 2012 regularisation order contained two important conditions: the regularisation would take effect from the date of the order, and the employee would continue under the existing CPF Scheme.
The professor retired in 2017 and received his retirement dues, including NIRD’s contribution under the CPF arrangement. He later approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, arguing that he should instead have been placed under the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme.
His claim received support from an earlier CAT decision involving another NIRD employee, Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma. The Tribunal subsequently relied on that ruling to grant relief to the professor.
That earlier case, however, later reached the Supreme Court.
In National Institute of Rural Development v Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma and Others, the Supreme Court held that Sharma’s regularisation could not be treated as having retrospective effect. Since the relevant 2012 order expressly made regularisation effective from the date it was issued, and Sharma had not challenged that condition, he remained entitled to benefits under the CPF Scheme.
The Telangana High Court applied that reasoning to the professor’s case. It observed that he had raised his objection only after retirement and after accepting CPF benefits, and therefore overturned the CAT’s decision in his favour.
The professor then approached the Supreme Court, arguing that his circumstances were materially different from Sharma’s case.
The Supreme Court disagreed.
The bench pointed out that his own regularisation order was subject to conditions that expressly preserved his coverage under the CPF Scheme. Those conditions, the Court noted, had never been challenged while he was in service.
The Court also took into account the fact that the professor accepted the regularisation terms, retired under that arrangement and received the corresponding CPF benefits before raising his claim.
In those circumstances, the bench found no basis to interfere with the High Court’s decision.
The Court further endorsed its earlier reasoning in Sharma’s case, noting that the effect of the applicable NIRD rules and service bye-laws had already been examined in detail. It declined to revisit that question.
The petition was consequently dismissed, leaving the professor covered by the CPF Scheme rather than the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme.
