Full Judgment Text
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8560/2010
GEETA WADHWA AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr K.K. Rai, Sr. Adv. with Mr S.K.
Pandey, Adv. in R.P No. 502/2014.
Mr Shankar Raju & Mr Nilansh Gaur, Advs. in
R.P. No. 342/2014
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Sanjeev Narula, CGSC with Mr Ajay
Kalra, Adv. for Resp./ UOI.
Mr Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv. for Resp./
University of Delhi.
Ms Somya Yadava & Mr Deepak Bhardwaj, Advs.
for R-4.
Mr Vaibhav Mehra, proxy counsel for Mr R.P.
Sharma, Adv. for R-5.
Mr Tom K. Jose, Sr. Assistant, Accounts
Department of R-6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
O R D E R
% 22.05.2015
Review Petition No. 502/2014 (by P-2)
1. This review petition has been filed by petitioner no. 2, i.e., Ms Ila
Trivedi. It is stated that the said petitioner did not exercise any option. In
other words, she neither exercised a positive option to remain in CPF, nor
did she exercise an option to switch-over to the Pension Scheme. It is thus
stated that the review petitioner would fall in category – III and, therefore,
would be covered by the judgement delivered by this court on 30.04.2014,
passed in WP(C) No. 1490/2006 – 1507/2006, titled: R.N. Virmani vs
W.P.(C) 8560/2010 Page 1 of 2
University of Delhi & Anr.
2. Mr Tom K. Jose, Sr. Assistant, Accounts Department, in the Jesus and
Mary College, is present in court. He has brought to court a “To Whom It
May Concern” certificate, stating therein that the review petitioner never
exercised the option to continue in the CPF Scheme. The aforementioned
college has and also filed an affidavit. On oath, the concerned officer, Mr
Swaraj Sarkar, has stated as follows:
“.... 2. That Ms Ela Trivedi never exercised her option to
remain in the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPF) at
any time. The Respondent no.7 has already issued
certificate dated 08.05.2014 in this regard.....”
3. Having regard to the above, the review petitioner in this case will be
entitled to the relief claimed. Accordingly, she would fall in category – III
and, would thus, be entitled to the relief in terms of the judgement of this
court passed in R.N. Virmani vs University of Delhi & Anr. It is ordered
accordingly.
4. The captioned review petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Review Petition No. 342/2014 (by P-1)
5. Learned counsel for respondent no.5 seeks further time to file an
affidavit qua letter dated 04.01.2011; which has been filed to establish
protest in collecting the CPF dues. The said letter is appended at page 128
of the paper book. Let the needful be done within one week.
6. List on 21.08.2015.
7. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
kk
MAY 22, 2015/
W.P.(C) 8560/2010 Page 2 of 2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8560/2010
GEETA WADHWA AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr K.K. Rai, Sr. Adv. with Mr S.K.
Pandey, Adv. in R.P No. 502/2014.
Mr Shankar Raju & Mr Nilansh Gaur, Advs. in
R.P. No. 342/2014
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Sanjeev Narula, CGSC with Mr Ajay
Kalra, Adv. for Resp./ UOI.
Mr Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv. for Resp./
University of Delhi.
Ms Somya Yadava & Mr Deepak Bhardwaj, Advs.
for R-4.
Mr Vaibhav Mehra, proxy counsel for Mr R.P.
Sharma, Adv. for R-5.
Mr Tom K. Jose, Sr. Assistant, Accounts
Department of R-6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
O R D E R
% 22.05.2015
Review Petition No. 502/2014 (by P-2)
1. This review petition has been filed by petitioner no. 2, i.e., Ms Ila
Trivedi. It is stated that the said petitioner did not exercise any option. In
other words, she neither exercised a positive option to remain in CPF, nor
did she exercise an option to switch-over to the Pension Scheme. It is thus
stated that the review petitioner would fall in category – III and, therefore,
would be covered by the judgement delivered by this court on 30.04.2014,
passed in WP(C) No. 1490/2006 – 1507/2006, titled: R.N. Virmani vs
W.P.(C) 8560/2010 Page 1 of 2
University of Delhi & Anr.
2. Mr Tom K. Jose, Sr. Assistant, Accounts Department, in the Jesus and
Mary College, is present in court. He has brought to court a “To Whom It
May Concern” certificate, stating therein that the review petitioner never
exercised the option to continue in the CPF Scheme. The aforementioned
college has and also filed an affidavit. On oath, the concerned officer, Mr
Swaraj Sarkar, has stated as follows:
“.... 2. That Ms Ela Trivedi never exercised her option to
remain in the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPF) at
any time. The Respondent no.7 has already issued
certificate dated 08.05.2014 in this regard.....”
3. Having regard to the above, the review petitioner in this case will be
entitled to the relief claimed. Accordingly, she would fall in category – III
and, would thus, be entitled to the relief in terms of the judgement of this
court passed in R.N. Virmani vs University of Delhi & Anr. It is ordered
accordingly.
4. The captioned review petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Review Petition No. 342/2014 (by P-1)
5. Learned counsel for respondent no.5 seeks further time to file an
affidavit qua letter dated 04.01.2011; which has been filed to establish
protest in collecting the CPF dues. The said letter is appended at page 128
of the paper book. Let the needful be done within one week.
6. List on 21.08.2015.
7. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
kk
MAY 22, 2015/
W.P.(C) 8560/2010 Page 2 of 2