The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in favor of a retired professor, holding that under the Rajendra Agricultural University Statutes, 1976, the default retiral benefit scheme is General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity, unless an employee explicitly opts for the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme. The Court overturned the Patn

Case Background

Mukesh Prasad Singh, the appellant, was appointed as a Junior Scientist cum Assistant Professor in 1987 at Rajendra Agricultural University (now Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University). During his tenure, the University was governed by the 1976 Statutes, which provided two retiral benefit schemes:

Contributory Provident Fund (CPF): Employees needed to explicitly opt for this scheme.

General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity (GPF-Pension): Employees who did not opt for CPF were automatically entitled to pension and gratuity benefits.

To implement this provision, the University issued an Office Order on February 21, 2008, giving employees one month to choose between two CPF schemes. The order clearly stated:

"Employees who do not exercise their option for CPF shall be included in the Pension Scheme as per Chapter 16.1 of the Act."

Read Also:- Supreme Court Rebukes Punjab Government for Reneging on Pension Scheme Commitment

However, despite not opting for CPF, Singh’s name was not included in the pension scheme. His repeated representations to the University were ignored, forcing him to file a writ petition before the Patna High Court.

During the pendency of his case, Singh retired on January 30, 2019. His plea was dismissed by a Single Judge on February 27, 2019, stating that he had missed multiple opportunities to opt for pension benefits in 1990, 1995, 1996, and 2008. The Division Bench dismissed his appeal on November 24, 2022, leading Singh to approach the Supreme Court.a High Court’s decision and directed the University to grant pension benefits to the appellant within four months.

Appellant’s Argument (Singh’s Counsel):

• The default retiral scheme under the University Statutes is pension and gratuity unless an employee explicitly opts for CPF.
• Since Singh never opted for CPF, he was automatically entitled to pension benefits.
• The University’s failure to include him in the pension scheme was illegal and contrary to its own statutes.

Respondent’s Argument (University’s Counsel):

• The University contended that Singh failed to exercise his option for pension despite multiple opportunities.
• He was therefore considered under the CPF scheme instead of the pension scheme.

Read Also:- Supreme Court to Decide on Sanjiv Bhatt's Plea Against Life Sentence in 1990 Custodial Torture Case

The Supreme Court carefully examined Chapter 16.1(b)(i) of the University Statutes, which states:

"Employees will be entitled to pension provided they do not opt for subscribing to the Contributory Provident Fund."

Additionally, Clause IV of the 2008 Office Order reaffirmed this by stating:

"Employees who do not exercise their option for CPF shall be included in the Pension Scheme."

1. Pension was the default scheme: The University Statutes and Office Order confirmed that unless an employee explicitly opted for CPF, they were automatically covered under GPF-Pension.

2. The appellant never opted for CPF: Singh never submitted a CPF option, meaning he was legally entitled to pension benefits.

3. Precedent from the Patna High Court: In Arjun Kumar v. State of Bihar (CWJC 2041/2012), the High Court had ruled that only those who explicitly opted for CPF were excluded from pension benefits. The same principle should have applied in Singh’s case.

5. High Court’s error: The Supreme Court criticized the Patna High Court’s dismissal of Singh’s petition despite granting relief in similar cases.

“Since the High Court had granted relief to similarly placed persons, it ought not to have dismissed the appellant’s writ petition.”

• The Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court’s order.
• It directed that Singh be provided retiral benefits under the pension-cum-gratuity scheme.
• The University was ordered to compute and disburse Singh’s pension benefits within four months.

“The appellant is entitled to retiral benefits under the General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme in accordance with law.”

Case : Mukesh Prasad Singh v. The Then Rajendra Agricultural University (Now Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University) & Ors.