A Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Narula held that an employee who has exercised an option to remain under the CPF scheme cannot later claim pension benefits under the CCS Pension Rules, as deemed conversion applies only where no option was exercised.<\/p>\n
Background Facts <\/p>\n
The petitioners are a group of former employees of the Export Inspection Council (EIC) and Export Inspection Agencies (EIAs). They claimed pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The petitioners argued that it had been extended to their establishment through the Export Inspection Council Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1981. <\/p>\n
However, they were denied pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed writ petition before Delhi High Court.<\/p>\n
It was argued by the petitioners that after the framing of the Export Inspection Council Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1981, read with the Office Memorandum of 1st May, 1987, employees were covered under the pension regime unless they elected to remain under the CPF scheme. <\/p>\n
It was further contended that due to the statutory changes, the CPF regime was replaced. It was further argued by the petitioners that they did not exercise any option to continue under Contributory Provident Fund (CPF). Therefore they must be treated as governed by the pension regime. <\/p>\n
Further the petitioners also relied upon contemporaneous material of 1991, including EIC internal notes and a EIC letter dated 20th August, 1991, to contend that the respondents themselves had approved pensionary benefits even for employees then being rendered surplus.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, it was argued by the respondents that the employees of the EIC and EIAs were not government servants. Their service conditions were governed by a distinct framework under the CPF scheme. The respondents placed reliance on option forms which indicated that the petitioners had elected to continue under the CPF scheme. It was also pointed out that the petitioners accepted the terminal benefits at the time of exit from service.<\/p>\n
Findings of the Court<\/p>\n
It was observed by the Court that the respondents had placed on record petitioners’ option forms which contained a record of election to continue under the CPF scheme in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 1st May, 1987. It was found by the court that the petitioners’ denial that no such option was ever exercised was disproved.<\/p>\n
The Court examined the letter dated 20th August, 1991, and found that the record preserved the distinction between the two regimes. The letter provided for full CPF contribution for those governed by the CPF scheme and pension for those governed by the 1981 Rules.<\/p>\n
Regarding Petitioner No. 11, it was observed by the Court that he had exited under a special voluntary retirement scheme and accepted benefits as a one-time full and final settlement. The decision in Shiv Prakash Saxena & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. was relied upon wherein it was held that claims arising from a special voluntary retirement scheme were not permitted to be reopened once employees had accepted its benefits. Therefore, it was held by the court that an employee who took a special voluntary retirement package cannot claim parity with one who retired in the ordinary course.<\/p>\n
It was held by the Court that the principle of deemed conversion applies only to those who did not exercise a valid option. It was further held that an employee who continued under the CPF scheme cannot claim parity with one who did not continue under the scheme. <\/p>\n
With the aforesaid observations, the petition filed by the employees was dismissed by the Court.<\/p>\n
Case Name : Debasis Das Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.<\/p>\n
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 345<\/p>\n
Case No. : W.P.(C) 6807\/2021<\/p>\n
Counsel for the Petitioners : S.P. Saxena, Advocate<\/p>\n
Counsel for the Respondents : Archana Gaur, CGSC with Ridhima Gaur, Deepu Kumar, L.R Khatana<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Narula held that an employee who has exercised an option…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":583948,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[45,49,48,223270,79671,35245,133,9611,131,132],"class_list":{"0":"post-583947","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-personal-finance","8":"tag-business","9":"tag-ca","10":"tag-canada","11":"tag-ccs-rules","12":"tag-cpf","13":"tag-delhi-hc","14":"tag-finance","15":"tag-pension","16":"tag-personal-finance","17":"tag-personalfinance"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/583947","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=583947"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/583947\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/583948"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=583947"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=583947"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=583947"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}