AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 27-08-2026 At the outset, Mr. Mriyunjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner clarifies and give information that the petitioner is still in service, however, considering that the scheme relates to pensionary benefit, the present writ petition has been posted before this Court.
Mr. Abhinav Ashok, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has no objection.
The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition has sought, inter alia, following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:-
“That this is an application for direction/directions commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner under pension Scheme of the University and to pay pension to the petitioner after his superannuation.”
The petitioner was appointed as a Training Associate (Dairy Technology) on 19.07.2001 and was initially posted at Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Khodawanpur, Begusarai. The petitioner underwent the prescribed training and, after completion of one year of training, submitted an application dated 04.10.2002 before the Training Organizer, Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Khodawanpur, Begusarai, showing his willingness for deduction of contribution in the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme in accordance with the Rules of the University. Subsequently, the University issued Office Order contained in Memo No. 2306/RAU, PUSA dated 21.02.2008 concerning the employees who had not exercised their option under Chapter 16.1 of the University Statute. The said Office Order also clarified the consequences of exercising or not exercising the option in terms of Clause 4 thereof read with Chapter 16.1(b)(i) of the University Statute. The petitioner claims that his case is required to be considered in the light of the aforesaid Office Order and the clarification contained therein.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the question which arises for consideration is whether the Office Order contained in Memo No. 2306/RAU, PUSA dated 21.02.2008 is applicable to those employees who had not exercised their option under Chapter 16.1 of the University Statute. It is submitted that the provision contained in Chapter 16.1 contemplates an option to be exercised by a permanent employee as to whether he intends to remain in the Contributory Provident Fund scheme or want to opt for the Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity scheme. Learned counsel submitted that the Office Order dated 21.02.2008 was issued to clarify the consequence of exercising or not exercising such option and, therefore, the petitioner's case is required to be considered in light of the said clarification. It is further submitted that, although the petitioner had initially shown his willingness for deduction towards CPF, his case ought to have been considered separately, as at the relevant time his services had not been confirmed. It is further submitted that the Office Order dated 21.02.2008 cannot be treated as clarificatory and that, before the petitioner could exercise an option for the second retiral benefit scheme, General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity, the University published a list of its employees covered under the said scheme on 12.04.2008. Learned counsel submits that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 4644 of 2023, Mukesh Prasad Singh v. The Then Rajendra Agricultural University (Now Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University) & Ors., did not consider the specific factual aspect relating to trainees whose services had not been confirmed and from whom the option was subsequently obtained. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner should be treated as a person who had not finally exercised the option under either of the two schemes and that, in terms of Chapter 16.1 of the University Statute read with the clarification issued vide Office Order dated 21.02.2008, he is entitled to be considered for inclusion under the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity scheme.
Per contra, Mr. Abhinav Ashok, learned counsel has tendered his appearance on behalf of the University and referring to the provisions of Chapter 16.1(b)(i) of the University Statute and specific statement made in the counter affidavit, particularly, in Paragraph No.8 submitted that petitioner had joined on 19.07.2001 and thereafter he underwent a training and after completion of his one year training, vide his application dated 04.10.2002, he had informed to the Training Organizer, K.V.K., Khodawanpur, Begusarai by showing his willingness to deduct CPF from his salary as per the Rules of the University. The petitioner being the employee of the University and being well informed about the provision of Chapter 16.1 of the University Statute, now cannot turn around and take advantage of letter dated 21.02.2008 that the same entitles him to apply to either exercise his option or don’t exercise his option for his entitlement to remain in GPF cum pension cum Gratuity scheme. On these background, learned counsel submitted that the present writ petition being devoid of any merit is fit to be dismissed.
Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, I find it apt to first take notice of the provisions of Chapter 16.1(b)(i) and 16.1(e) of the University Statute.
16 (b) The University employees shall be allowed the benefit of pension as below:
(i)Employees as have been appointed by the University will be entitled to the pension provided they do not opt for subscribing to the Contributory Provident Fund.
(e)The University shall allow the benefit of the General Provident Fund to such employees as are not admitted to the Contributory Provident Fund. The General Provident Fund of the University will be governed by the rules and orders of the State Government…”
I find it appropriate to reproduce paragraph no. 5 of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Mukesh Prasad Singh (supra), wherein the Apex Court has taken into consideration the Office Memo No. 2306/RAU, PUSA dated 21.02.2008.
“5.In order to implement these provisions, the respondent- University invited options from its employees at various points, including by Office Order Memo No. 2306/RAU, Pusa dated 21.02.2008, which reads as follows:
“I. In terms of the decision taken on dated 15.12.2017 in 72 meeting of the Management Council of the Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa, which was held in the premises of Bihar Veterinary Medical University, Patna and for fully implementing the provisions of Chapter 16.1 of the University Act and to complete the exercise of automatically providing the benefit of Pension Scheme by including the employee in the General Provident Fund-Cum-Gratuity Pension Scheme where no option was given by the employee to opt for the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme under Triple Benefits Scheme, the employees who were appointed before 1st September 2005 and who are not getting the benefits of the Pension in terms of the University Rules, are hereby given opportunity to exercise their option to opt to any of the following two types of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme:
1. Contributory Provident Fund Scheme 10% deduction (of basic pay) with 10% contribution by the University 2. Contributory Provident Fund cum Gratuity Scheme 8% deduction (of basic pay) with 8% contribution by the University II. That an opportunity is hereby given to the employee who are willing to get the benefit of any of the above two Contributory Provident Funds to submit their option in the prescribed form, in duplicate, before their Controlling Officer/Unit within one month from the issue of this Office Order.
III. Vide this Office Order, the Controlling Officer/Unit are directed to collect the option letters from the employee working in their subordinate offices and send it along with a List to the Comptroller, Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa by a special messenger within one week after the last date of giving option.
IV. After scrutiny of the above received option letters, the employees who don’t give their option for Contributory Provident Fund, shall be included in the Pension Scheme in terms of the Chapter (16.1) of the Act, after passing appropriate order of the Comptroller and shall be forwarded to all the concerned Officers/Units for taking necessary action and to all the concerned non-teaching employee/scientist/officers for information.”
On a plain reading of Chapter 16.1(b)(i) of the University Statute, and considering the fact that the appellant in the said case had not exercised his option to be included in the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme within the time prescribed under Clauses 2 and 4 of the Office Order dated 21.02.2008, the appellant was held entitled to be covered under the second retiral benefit scheme, i.e. the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme. The Apex Court, after considering the facts of the said case and the judgment of this Court passed in CWJC No. 2041 of 2012 on 10.12.2012, held that the option was required to be exercised only by those employees who wanted to be covered under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. Those employees who did not exercise such option were to be governed by the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme in terms of Chapter 16.1 of the University Statute. The relevant discussion made by the Apex Court in Paragraph No. 11 of its judgment is reproduced hereinafter:
“11.In fact, the High Court has taken note of this position while disposing of writ petitions with similar prayers by other employees of the respondent-University. In the decision of Arjun Kumar v. State of Bihar and ors, (C.W.J.C. No. 2041 of 2012), a learned single judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition by holding that the option was to be exercised only by those who wanted to be included in the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, while other employees would be covered by the General Provident Fund-cum-pension- cum-gratuity scheme as per Chapter 16.1 of the University Statute. The relevant portion of the order is extracted:
“It is evident from the narration of facts that earlier as per un- amended Statutes, 1976 the only provision was with respect to CPF for all the employees of the University. However, by the amendment to Clause 16.1 of the Statutes as per Notification No. 1685 dated 17.4.1979 the scheme for pension was introduced in the University along with benefit of gratuity and G.P.F. The Statutes were very clear that all employees appointed by the University would be entitled to pension except those who have opted for subscribing for CPF. There is nothing ambiguous regarding the said point in the Statues. In the said circumstances, it was futile action on the part of the University that they have repeatedly sought for exercise of option with respect to employees of the University who have not got the benefit of pension scheme. As a matter of fact, the option was to be exercised only by those who wanted to be in the CPF scheme. From the facts and materials on the record it is the clear stand of the petitioner that he never exercised the option for CPF which fact could not be contradicted by the University by producing anything to show that the petitioner had opted for CPF. The only conclusion, therefore, is that in terms of Clause 16.1 of the Statutes the petitioner would be entitled to benefit of pension.
Based on such consideration, the Apex Court held in Para-12 as under:
“12.Since it is an admitted fact that the appellant did not exercise his option under the Office Order dated 21.02.2008, he did not opt in for the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. Therefore, as per the University Statutes and the Office Order, he is entitled to retiral benefits under the General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme. The High Court wrongly dismissed his writ petition on the ground that he did not exercise his option. In fact, being included under the second retiral scheme is a consequence of non-exercise of option provided under the Office Order. Further, once the High Court granted relief to similarly placed persons, it ought not to have dismissed the appellant’s writ petition.”
In above background, the Apex Court allowed the appeal filed by Mukesh Prasad Singh, the appellant before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.4644 of 2023.
I find force in the argument of Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the facts of the case before the Apex Court related to the permanent employees among whom some of the employees opted for scheme-1 and those employees who had not opted, benefit under the General Provident Fund cum pension cum Gratuity Scheme was deemed automatic and that is what has been clarified by the Apex Court.
In the present case, the petitioner vide his application dated 04.10.2002 had given his option two months just after completion of his one year training to the Training Organizer, Khodawanpur, Begusarai and not to his appointing authority. The same has been brought on record by way of Annexure R/1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University. The counter affidavit is also silent that the option was sent to the appointing authority of the petitioner or about any final decision taken by the appointing authority in respect of the petitioner, who as a trainee after completion of his one year training had requested the Training Organizer to deduct CPF from his salary as per the Rules of the University.
I find that in the facts of the present case, it is not the case of the either parties that the petitioner, had consciously and had repeatedly opted for the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, and thereafter had sought to switch over to the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme. Thus, in absence of any information and any decision of the competent authority brought on record finally accepting the option of the petitioner in Scheme No.1, it cannot be conclusively admitted that the petitioner had opted for the CPF scheme and he is not entitled for Scheme No.2. The absence of any final decision by the competent authority regarding the petitioner’s alleged CPF option assumes significance, particularly when the subsequent Office Order dated 21.02.2008 contemplated the inclusion of employees who had not opted for CPF in the pension scheme. Therefore, the objection of delay or belated exercise of option cannot, in the facts of the present case, defeat the petitioner’s claim, and that his case is not required to be considered in accordance with Chapter 16.1 of the University Statute and the aforesaid Office Order, particularly when the record does not establish a final and valid exercise of option binding the petitioner to the CPF Scheme.
Accordingly, I find that the petitioner has made out a case to the extent that in the absence of any decision of the competent authority finally admitting the petitioner to the CPF Scheme, his case cannot be rejected merely on the basis of the application dated 04.10.2002. The Vice-Chancellor of the University is, therefore, directed to examine the petitioner’s claim in the light of Chapter 16.1 of the University Statute, the Office Order dated 21.02.2008 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Mukesh Prasad Singh (supra), and to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner due opportunity of hearing. If, upon such consideration, it is found that the petitioner was not finally admitted to the CPF Scheme, his entitlement to the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme shall be determined accordingly.
With the above observation and direction, the writ application stands disposed of.