Supreme Court Directs Inclusion In Pension-Linked Retiral Scheme Where Employee Did Not Opt For CPF

A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra heard an appeal challenging the Patna High Court’s dismissal of a writ petition by a retired university employee who sought inclusion in the General Provident Fund‑cum‑pension‑cum‑gratuity scheme instead of the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme. The appeal arose from SLP (C) No. 4644 of 2023 and questioned whether non‑exercise of an option, where a statute and an office order provided for automatic inclusion in the pensionary scheme, entitled the appellant to pensionary benefits.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order dated 24.11.2022 and directed that the appellant be provided retiral benefits under the General Provident Fund‑cum‑pension‑cum‑gratuity scheme subject to adjustments. The Court observed that the University Statute and the implementing Office Order together made clear that the default scheme for employees was the pension/GPF/gratuity package unless an employee affirmatively opted for the CPF. The Court noted that employees appointed by the University “will be entitled to pension provided they do not opt for subscribing to the Contributory Provident Fund.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The Office Order dated 21.02.2008, which was issued to implement the provisions of Chapter 16 of the University Statute, also has the same effect. It allows the employees to opt for two kinds of Contributory Provident Fund Schemes within 1 month from issuance, and Clause (IV) provides that the employees who do not exercise their option for either scheme ‘shall be included in the Pension Scheme in terms of the Chapter (16.1) of the Act’. Therefore, even under the Office Order, non-exercise of any option to opt into the Contributory Provident Fund automatically entitles the University employees, including the appellant, to be included in the General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme.” The Court directed computation and disbursement within four months and recorded that adjustments were to be made for any benefits already availed by the appellant under the CPF.

Background The appellant was appointed as Junior Scientist cum Assistant Professor by Rajendra Agricultural University in 1987 when the Rajendra Agricultural University Statutes, 1976 governed service and retiral benefits. Chapter 16 prescribed two distinct regimes: CPF (which disqualified employees from pension/GPF) and the General Provident Fund‑cum‑pension‑cum‑gratuity scheme for those who did not opt for CPF. The University issued an Office Order dated 21.02.2008 inviting employees appointed before 1 September 2005 to opt, within one month, for two variants of the CPF; Clause (IV) stated that employees who did not give their option would be included in the pension scheme under Chapter 16.1.

The appellant did not submit an option within the stipulated time. When the University published the list of employees to be covered under the pensionary scheme on 12.04.2008, his name was absent. He made representations and then filed a writ petition under Article 226; he retired on 30.01.2019 during the pendency of proceedings. The single judge dismissed the petition on 27.02.2019 on the ground that the appellant had failed to exercise options in 1990, 1995, 1996 and 2008. The High Court dismissed the writ appeal on like grounds on 24.11.2022.

The Supreme Court reviewed Chapter 16 and the Office Order, relied on earlier High Court decisions concerning similarly placed employees (including Arjun Kumar v. State of Bihar and others) and concluded that the plain language established that the default consequence of non‑exercise of option was inclusion in the pensionary/GPF/gratuity scheme. The Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing relief when similarly placed persons had been granted pensionary benefits. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the University was directed to compute and disburse the retiral benefits within four months, subject to adjustment for benefits already availed; no costs were ordered and pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 312 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4644 of 2023) Case Title: Mukesh Prasad Singh v. The Then Rajendra Agricultural University (now Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University) & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the judgment]