Clear provisions of Chapter 16 of the University Statutes indicated automatic entitlement to the pension scheme in absence of opting for the Contributory Provident Fund. Non-exercise of option was not a ground to exclude the appellant from the pension scheme. Similarly placed employees had already been granted such benefits by the High Court. (Paras 8 to 13.)

Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Directed University to include appellant in the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme.

Major Acts:

• Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) — Article 226 — Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.

• Rajendra Agricultural University Statutes, 1976 — Chapter 16 — Provisions for Pension, General Provident Fund, and Contributory Provident Fund.

Subjects: Retiral Benefits — Contributory Provident Fund — General Provident Fund — Pension Scheme — Gratuity — Non-Exercise of Option — High Court Order — Writ Petition — Superannuation.

Question of Law: Whether the appellant, having not exercised the option for the Contributory Provident Fund, was entitled to be automatically included in the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme under the University Statutes and Office Order.

Nature of Litigation: Civil Appeal arising from a dismissed writ appeal filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Relief Sought: Inclusion of the appellant in the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme.

Reason for Filing the Case: Exclusion of the appellant from the pension scheme despite non-exercise of option for the Contributory Provident Fund.

Prior Decisions:

• Learned Single Judge of High Court — Dismissed writ petition (Order dated 27.02.2019)

• Division Bench of High Court — Dismissed writ appeal (Order dated 24.11.2022)

Issues:

(a) Whether the non-exercise of option for the Contributory Provident Fund automatically entitles the employee to the pension scheme. (b) Whether similarly placed employees had been granted pension benefits by the High Court.

Submissions/Arguments:

• Appellant: Argued entitlement to default pension scheme as per Chapter 16 of the University Statutes due to non-exercise of option.

• Respondents: Contended appellant was not included due to failure to exercise the required option.