Case Summary
Case Name: Mukesh Prasad Singh v. The Then Rajendra Agricultural University & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: 4th March 2025
Bench: Hon'ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Hon'ble Justice Manoj Misra
Relevant Statutes: Rajendra Agricultural University Statutes, 1976
Cited Precedents:
Arjun Kumar v. State of Bihar, CWJC 2041 of 2012;
Dr. Vijay Kumar Jaiswal v. Bihar Agriculture University, CWJC 12667/2012;
Ramjanam Prasad v. Rajendra Agricultural University, CWJC 2377/2006;
Dr. Surendra Bahadur Singh v. Bihar Agriculture University, CWJC 1941/2014
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated 4th March 2025, examined the question of whether an employee who had not opted for the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme was entitled to retiral benefits under the General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme as per the Rajendra Agricultural University Statutes, 1976. The decision is significant as it reinforces the principle that statutory provisions governing pension and provident fund schemes must be interpreted in a manner that ensures fairness and consistency in their implementation.
Factual Background
The appellant, Mukesh Prasad Singh, was appointed as a Junior Scientist cum Assistant Professor by the respondent-University in 1987. As per the University Statutes, employees were entitled to one of two schemes:
Contributory Provident Fund (CPF), which required an express opt-in, and
General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity, which was the default scheme unless the employee opted for CPF.
The University issued multiple notifications requiring employees to exercise their option regarding the CPF scheme. The appellant did not submit any such option. Despite this, when the University published a list of employees eligible for the pension scheme, his name was excluded. After several representations, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking inclusion in the pension scheme.
Proceedings Before the High Court
The learned single judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant had failed to opt for the pension scheme despite multiple opportunities. The writ appeal against this decision was also dismissed, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
Key Issues Considered by the Supreme Court
Whether non-exercise of an option for CPF automatically entitled the appellant to the pension scheme.
Whether the appellant’s exclusion from the list of pension scheme beneficiaries was justified under the University Statutes.
Whether similar cases had been decided differently by the High Court, creating a precedent in the appellant’s favour.
Findings of the Supreme Court
1. Applicability of the University Statutes
The Court referred to Chapter 16 of the University Statutes, which governs pension and provident fund schemes. It noted that Clause 16.1(b)(i) clearly states:
"Employees appointed by the University will be entitled to the pension provided they do not opt for subscribing to the Contributory Provident Fund."
This provision established that pension was the default scheme unless an employee expressly chose CPF. Since the appellant had not opted for CPF, the natural conclusion was that he was entitled to the pension scheme.
2. Interpretation of the 2008 Office Order
The Supreme Court analysed the University’s Office Order dated 21st February 2008, which sought to implement the pension scheme provisions. The relevant portion stated:
"The employees who do not give their option for Contributory Provident Fund shall be included in the Pension Scheme in terms of the Chapter (16.1) of the Act."
Since the appellant had not opted for CPF, the University was obligated to include him in the pension scheme. The Court held that the University’s failure to do so was arbitrary and contrary to its own rules.
3. Precedents Set by the High Court in Similar Cases
The Supreme Court also considered previous High Court decisions in similar cases, particularly in Arjun Kumar v. State of Bihar (CWJC 2041 of 2012), where the High Court had held:
"The option was to be exercised only by those who wanted to be in the CPF scheme. Employees who had not opted for CPF would automatically be covered under the pension scheme."
Additionally, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court had ruled similarly in cases such as Dr. Vijay Kumar Jaiswal v. Bihar Agriculture University and Ramjanam Prasad v. Rajendra Agricultural University. Given these precedents, the Court held that denying the appellant’s pension benefits was discriminatory.
Final Judgment and Reasoning
Based on the above findings, the Supreme Court concluded that:
The appellant was entitled to the pension scheme as per the University Statutes and Office Order.
The High Court erred in dismissing the appellant’s claim when similarly placed employees had been granted relief.
The University’s exclusion of the appellant from the pension scheme was unjustified.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and directed the University to grant the appellant retiral benefits under the pension scheme, stating:
"We allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 24.11.2022, and direct that the appellant be provided retiral benefits under the General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme in accordance with law."
The University was further directed to complete the necessary computation and disbursement within four months.
Conclusion
This judgment reinforces the principle that pensionary benefits must be granted in accordance with statutory provisions and that administrative authorities cannot arbitrarily exclude eligible employees. It also underscores the importance of uniform application of legal principles to avoid discriminatory treatment among similarly placed individuals.
Comments