Dr. Chandrabhan Singh vs Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20513 of 2025
======================================================
Dr. Chandrabhan Singh Son of Late Rajnarayan Singh, resident of House No.
5-24/160 Vikash Nagar Colony Taktakpur, Varanasi, presently at Qr. No. Old
C-1/56 Dr. R.P.C.A.U Campus, Samastipur Pusa, and working as Assistant
Professor Cum Scientist, APRI Deptt, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central
Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University through its Registrar,
Pusa, Samastipur, Bihar.
2. The Vice Chancellor, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University,
Pusa, Samastipur, Bihar.
3. The Registrar, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural university Pusa,
Samastipur, Bihar.
4. The Comptroller, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa,
Samastipur, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhinav Ashok, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-08-2026
At the outset, Mr. Mriyunjay Kumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner clarifies and give
information that the petitioner is still in service, however,
considering that the scheme relates to pensionary benefit, the
present writ petition has been posted before this Court.
2. Mr. Abhinav Ashok, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner has no objection.
3. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present
writ petition has sought, inter alia , following relief(s), which is
Patna High Court CWJC No.20513 of 2025 dt.27-08-2026
2/11
reproduced hereinafter:-
“That this is an application for
direction/directions commanding the respondents to treat
the petitioner under pension Scheme of the University and
to pay pension to the petitioner after his superannuation.”
4. The petitioner was appointed as a Training
Associate (Dairy Technology) on 19.07.2001 and was initially
posted at Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Khodawanpur, Begusarai. The
petitioner underwent the prescribed training and, after
completion of one year of training, submitted an application
dated 04.10.2002 before the Training Organizer, Krishi Vigyan
Kendra, Khodawanpur, Begusarai, showing his willingness for
deduction of contribution in the Contributory Provident Fund
(CPF) scheme in accordance with the Rules of the University.
Subsequently, the University issued Office Order contained in
Memo No. 2306/RAU, PUSA dated 21.02.2008 concerning the
employees who had not exercised their option under Chapter
16.1 of the University Statute. The said Office Order also
clarified the consequences of exercising or not exercising the
option in terms of Clause 4 thereof read with Chapter 16.1(b)(i)
of the University Statute. The petitioner claims that his case is
required to be considered in the light of the aforesaid Office
Order and the clarification contained therein.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20513 of 2025 dt.27-08-2026
3/11
petitioner submitted that the question which arises for
consideration is whether the Office Order contained in Memo
No. 2306/RAU, PUSA dated 21.02.2008 is applicable to those
employees who had not exercised their option under Chapter
16.1 of the University Statute. It is submitted that the provision
contained in Chapter 16.1 contemplates an option to be
exercised by a permanent employee as to whether he intends to
remain in the Contributory Provident Fund scheme or want to
opt for the Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity scheme.
Learned counsel submitted that the Office Order dated
21.02.2008 was issued to clarify the consequence of exercising
or not exercising such option and, therefore, the petitioner's case
is required to be considered in light of the said clarification. It is
further submitted that, although the petitioner had initially
shown his willingness for deduction towards CPF, his case
ought to have been considered separately, as at the relevant time
his services had not been confirmed. It is further submitted that
the Office Order dated 21.02.2008 cannot be treated as
clarificatory and that, before the petitioner could exercise an
option for the second retiral benefit scheme, General Provident
Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity, the University published a list
of its employees covered under the said scheme on 12.04.2008.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20513 of 2025 dt.27-08-2026
4/11
Learned counsel submits that the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 4644 of 2023, Mukesh Prasad
Singh v. The Then Rajendra Agricultural University (Now Dr.
Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University) & Ors., did
not consider the specific factual aspect relating to trainees
whose services had not been confirmed and from whom the
option was subsequently obtained. It is, therefore, contended
that the petitioner should be treated as a person who had not
finally exercised the option under either of the two schemes and
that, in terms of Chapter 16.1 of the University Statute read with
the clarification issued vide Office Order dated 21.02.2008, he
is entitled to be considered for inclusion under the General
Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity scheme.
6. Per contra, Mr. Abhinav Ashok, learned counsel
has tendered his appearance on behalf of the University and
referring to the provisions of Chapter 16.1(b)(i) of the
University Statute and specific statement made in the counter
affidavit, particularly, in Paragraph No.8 submitted that
petitioner had joined on 19.07.2001 and thereafter he underwent
a training and after completion of his one year training, vide his
application dated 04.10.2002, he had informed to the Training
Organizer, K.V.K., Khodawanpur, Begusarai by showing his
Patna High Court CWJC No.20513 of 2025 dt.27-08-2026
5/11
willingness to deduct CPF from his salary as per the Rules of
the University. The petitioner being the employee of the
University and being well informed about the provision of
Chapter 16.1 of the University Statute, now cannot turn around
and take advantage of letter dated 21.02.2008 that the same
entitles him to apply to either exercise his option or don’t
exercise his option for his entitlement to remain in GPF cum
pension cum Gratuity scheme. On these background, learned
counsel submitted that the present writ petition being devoid of
any merit is fit to be dismissed.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, I find it apt to first take notice of the
provisions of Chapter 16.1(b)(i) and 16.1(e) of the University
Statute.
16 (b) The University employees shall
be allowed the benefit of pension as below:
(i) Employees as have been appointed
by the University will be entitled to the pension
provided they do not opt for subscribing to the
Contributory Provident Fund.
(e) The University shall allow the
benefit of the General Provident Fund to such
employees as are not admitted to the Contributory
Provident Fund. The General Provident Fund of the
University will be governed by the rules and orders
of the State Government…”
8. I find it appropriate to reproduce paragraph no. 5
of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of
Patna High Court CWJC No.20513 of 2025 dt.27-08-2026
6/11
Mukesh Prasad Singh (supra) , wherein the Apex Court has
taken into consideration the Office Memo No. 2306/RAU,
PUSA dated 21.02.2008.
“5. In order to implement these provisions,
the respondent- University invited options from its
employees at various points, including by Office Order
Memo No. 2306/RAU, Pusa dated 21.02.2008, which reads
as follows:
“I. In terms of the decision taken on dated
nd
15.12.2017 in 72 meeting of the Management Council of
the Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa, which was held
in the premises of Bihar Veterinary Medical University,
Patna and for fully implementing the provisions of Chapter
16.1 of the University Act and to complete the exercise of
automatically providing the benefit of Pension Scheme by
including the employee in the General Provident Fund-
Cum-Gratuity Pension Scheme where no option was given
by the employee to opt for the Contributory Provident Fund
Scheme under Triple Benefits Scheme, the employees who
were appointed before 1st September 2005 and who are not
getting the benefits of the Pension in terms of the University
Rules, are hereby given opportunity to exercise their option
to opt to any of the following two types of Contributory
Provident Fund Scheme:
1. Contributory Provident
Fund Scheme
10% deduction (of basic pay)
with 10% contribution by the
University
2. Contributory Provident
Fund cum Gratuity
Scheme
8% deduction (of basic pay)
with 8% contribution by the
University
I I. That an opportunity is hereby given to the
employee who are willing to get the benefit of any of the above
two Contributory Provident Funds to submit their option in the
prescribed form, in duplicate, before their Controlling
Officer/Unit within one month from the issue of this Office Order.
III. Vide this Office Order, the Controlling
Officer/Unit are directed to collect the option letters from the
employee working in their subordinate offices and send it along
with a List to the Comptroller, Rajendra Agriculture University,
Pusa by a special messenger within one week after the last date
of giving option.
IV. After scrutiny of the above received option
letters, the employees who don’t give their option for
Contributory Provident Fund, shall be included in the Pension
Scheme in terms of the Chapter (16.1) of the Act, after passing
appropriate order of the Comptroller and shall be forwarded to
all the concerned Officers/Units for taking necessary action and
Patna High Court CWJC No.20513 of 2025 dt.27-08-2026
7/11
to all the concerned non-teaching employee/scientist/officers for
information.”
9. On a plain reading of Chapter 16.1(b)(i) of the
University Statute, and considering the fact that the appellant in
the said case had not exercised his option to be included in the
Contributory Provident Fund Scheme within the time prescribed
under Clauses 2 and 4 of the Office Order dated 21.02.2008, the
appellant was held entitled to be covered under the second
retiral benefit scheme, i.e. the General Provident Fund-cum-
Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme. The Apex Court, after
considering the facts of the said case and the judgment of this
Court passed in CWJC No. 2041 of 2012 on 10.12.2012, held
that the option was required to be exercised only by those
employees who wanted to be covered under the Contributory
Provident Fund Scheme. Those employees who did not exercise
such option were to be governed by the General Provident
Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme in terms of Chapter
16.1 of the University Statute. The relevant discussion made by
the Apex Court in Paragraph No. 11 of its judgment is
reproduced hereinafter:
“11. In fact, the High Court has taken note of
this position while disposing of writ petitions with similar
prayers by other employees of the respondent-University. In
the decision of Arjun Kumar v. State of Bihar and ors,
(C.W.J.C. No. 2041 of 2012), a learned single judge of the
High Court allowed the writ petition by holding that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20513 of 2025 dt.27-08-2026
8/11
option was to be exercised only by those who wanted to be
included in the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, while
other employees would be covered by the General
Provident Fund-cum-pension- cum-gratuity scheme as per
Chapter 16.1 of the University Statute. The relevant portion
of the order is extracted:
“It is evident from the narration of facts
that earlier as per un- amended Statutes, 1976
the only provision was with respect to CPF for
all the employees of the University. However, by
the amendment to Clause 16.1 of the Statutes as
per Notification No. 1685 dated 17.4.1979 the
scheme for pension was introduced in the
University along with benefit of gratuity and
G.P.F. The Statutes were very clear that all
employees appointed by the University would be
entitled to pension except those who have opted
for subscribing for CPF. There is nothing
ambiguous regarding the said point in the
Statues. In the said circumstances, it was futile
action on the part of the University that they
have repeatedly sought for exercise of option
with respect to employees of the University who
have not got the benefit of pension scheme. As a
matter of fact, the option was to be exercised
only by those who wanted to be in the CPF
scheme. From the facts and materials on the
record it is the clear stand of the petitioner that
he never exercised the option for CPF which fact
could not be contradicted by the University by
producing anything to show that the petitioner
had opted for CPF. The only conclusion,
therefore, is that in terms of Clause 16.1 of the
Statutes the petitioner would be entitled to
benefit of pension.
10. Based on such consideration, the Apex Court
held in Para-12 as under:
“12. Since it is an admitted fact that the
appellant did not exercise his option under the Office Order
dated 21.02.2008, he did not opt in for the Contributory
Provident Fund Scheme. Therefore, as per the University
Statutes and the Office Order, he is entitled to retiral
benefits under the General Provident Fund-cum-pension-
cum-gratuity scheme. The High Court wrongly dismissed
his writ petition on the ground that he did not exercise his
option. In fact, being included under the second retiral
scheme is a consequence of non-exercise of option provided
under the Office Order. Further, once the High Court
granted relief to similarly placed persons, it ought not to
have dismissed the appellant’s writ petition.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.20513 of 2025 dt.27-08-2026
9/11
11. In above background, the Apex Court allowed
the appeal filed by Mukesh Prasad Singh, the appellant before
the Apex Court in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.4644
of 2023.
12. I find force in the argument of Mr. Mrityunjay
Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
that the facts of the case before the Apex Court related to the
permanent employees among whom some of the employees
opted for scheme-1 and those employees who had not opted,
benefit under the General Provident Fund cum pension cum
Gratuity Scheme was deemed automatic and that is what has
been clarified by the Apex Court.
13. In the present case, the petitioner vide his
application dated 04.10.2002 had given his option two months
just after completion of his one year training to the Training
Organizer, Khodawanpur, Begusarai and not to his appointing
authority. The same has been brought on record by way of
Annexure R/1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
University. The counter affidavit is also silent that the option
was sent to the appointing authority of the petitioner or about
any final decision taken by the appointing authority in respect of
the petitioner, who as a trainee after completion of his one year
Patna High Court CWJC No.20513 of 2025 dt.27-08-2026
10/11
training had requested the Training Organizer to deduct CPF
from his salary as per the Rules of the University.
14. I find that in the facts of the present case, it is not
the case of the either parties that the petitioner, had consciously
and had repeatedly opted for the Contributory Provident Fund
Scheme, and thereafter had sought to switch over to the General
Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme. Thus, in
absence of any information and any decision of the competent
authority brought on record finally accepting the option of the
petitioner in Scheme No.1, it cannot be conclusively admitted
that the petitioner had opted for the CPF scheme and he is not
entitled for Scheme No.2. The absence of any final decision by
the competent authority regarding the petitioner’s alleged CPF
option assumes significance, particularly when the subsequent
Office Order dated 21.02.2008 contemplated the inclusion of
employees who had not opted for CPF in the pension scheme.
Therefore, the objection of delay or belated exercise of option
cannot, in the facts of the present case, defeat the petitioner’s
claim, and that his case is not required to be considered in
accordance with Chapter 16.1 of the University Statute and the
aforesaid Office Order, particularly when the record does not
establish a final and valid exercise of option binding the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20513 of 2025 dt.27-08-2026
11/11
petitioner to the CPF Scheme.
15. Accordingly, I find that the petitioner has made
out a case to the extent that in the absence of any decision of the
competent authority finally admitting the petitioner to the CPF
Scheme, his case cannot be rejected merely on the basis of the
application dated 04.10.2002. The Vice-Chancellor of the
University is, therefore, directed to examine the petitioner’s
claim in the light of Chapter 16.1 of the University Statute, the
Office Order dated 21.02.2008 and the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in case of Mukesh Prasad Singh (supra) , and to
take an appropriate decision in accordance with law, after
affording the petitioner due opportunity of hearing. If, upon
such consideration, it is found that the petitioner was not finally
admitted to the CPF Scheme, his entitlement to the General
Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme shall be
determined accordingly.
16. With the above observation and direction, the
writ application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 01.09.2026
Transmission Date N.A.