An unfinalised CPF option cannot defeat an employee’s claim for GPF-cum-pension-cum-gratuity benefits.

The petitioner, appointed as a Training Associate (Dairy Technology) on 19 July 2001, completed one year of training and, by application dated 4 October 2002 addressed to the Training Organiser, expressed willingness for deduction of contributions under the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme.

The University subsequently issued Office Order Memo No. 2306/RAU, Pusa dated 21 February 2008, inviting employees appointed before 1 September 2005 to opt for either of two CPF schemes and providing that employees who did not opt for CPF would be included in the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme.

Relying on the University Statute, the Office Order, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Mukesh Prasad Singh v. The Then Rajendra Agricultural University, the petitioner claimed coverage under the pension scheme.

The University contended that the petitioner’s application dated 4 October 2002 constituted an option for CPF and disentitled him from claiming the pension scheme.

The petitioner remained in service, but the petition was entertained because it concerned pensionary benefits.

Whether the petitioner’s application dated 4 October 2002, submitted to the Training Organiser after completion of training, constituted a final and binding exercise of option in favour of the CPF Scheme.

Whether, in the absence of a final decision by the competent University authority admitting the petitioner to the CPF Scheme, his claim was required to be considered under Chapter 16.1 of the University Statute and Office Order dated 21 February 2008 for inclusion in the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme.

Chapter 16.1(b)(i) of the University Statute provides that University employees are entitled to pension unless they opt to subscribe to the CPF.

Chapter 16.1(e) requires the University to provide the General Provident Fund benefit to employees who are not admitted to the CPF.

Under Office Order Memo No. 2306/RAU dated 21 February 2008, employees were invited to exercise an option for either of the specified CPF schemes, while employees who did not opt for CPF were to be included in the pension scheme under Chapter 16.1.

In Mukesh Prasad Singh v. The Then Rajendra Agricultural University, the Supreme Court held that the option was required only from employees seeking inclusion in the CPF Scheme; non-exercise of the option resulted in coverage under the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme.

The Court applied the principle that an employee cannot be denied pensionary coverage merely on the basis of an alleged CPF option unless the option was validly and finally accepted by the competent authority.

The Court distinguished the present case from Mukesh Prasad Singh, which concerned employees who had not exercised an option under the 2008 Office Order.

Although the petitioner had expressed willingness in 2002 for CPF deductions, the application was addressed to the Training Organiser rather than the appointing authority, and the University’s counter-affidavit did not establish that the competent authority had received, accepted, or finally acted upon that purported option.

The record also did not show that the petitioner had consciously and repeatedly opted for CPF or that he had subsequently sought to switch schemes.

Accordingly, the Court held that the 2002 application alone could not conclusively bind the petitioner to the CPF Scheme, particularly in view of the 2008 Office Order providing pension coverage to employees who had not opted for CPF.

The Vice-Chancellor was directed to examine the claim under Chapter 16.1 of the University Statute, the Office Order dated 21 February 2008, and Mukesh Prasad Singh, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

If the petitioner was found not to have been finally admitted to the CPF Scheme, his entitlement to the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme was to be determined accordingly.

The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.