Direct Recruits under Approved GPF Scheme Cannot Be Unilaterally Restored to CPF or Shifted to NPS Retrospectively.

The petitioners are current and former employees of the National Council for Promotion of Urdu Language (NCPUL). They joined NCPUL prior to the 01.01.2004 cut-off for the New Pension System (NPS) and opted for the GPF-cum-pension scheme under Para 22 of the NCPUL Service Regulations

For decades, the employer deducted GPF subscriptions and maintained individual accounts

However, the Ministry of Finance later issued communications (starting in 2005) asserting that direct recruits of NCPUL were not entitled to the Government pension pattern and should be under the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF)

Consequently, NCPUL withheld pension for retired petitioner M.A. Khan, and Maulana Azad National Urdu University (MANUU)—where some petitioners had transferred—sought to migrate them to NPS because NCPUL failed to transfer pro-rata pensionary liabilities

1. Whether NCPUL direct recruits appointed before 01.01.2004, who opted for and were treated under the GPF-cum-pension scheme, can be denied pensionary benefits based on subsequent executive communications

2. Whether serving employees can maintain a cause of action regarding pensionary status before retirement

3. Whether MANUU can compel employees to migrate to NPS due to the previous employer's failure to transfer pro-rata pension liabilities

The Court applied the principle that pension is a valuable right and a form of property under Article 300A of the Constitution, rather than a bounty, as established in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India and State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava

It relied on the doctrine against the retrospective alteration of service conditions to the detriment of accrued rights, citing Chairman, Railway Board v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah and Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies

Furthermore, it applied the rule from Union of India v. Tarsem Singh regarding "continuing wrongs" in pension matters to bypass objections of delay

The Court reasoned that the petitioners' pensionary rights had crystallized through their appointments under approved Service Regulations and years of GPF deductions

It found the Respondents' position—that employees could "continue" under CPF—factually untenable because NCPUL admitted that no CPF framework ever existed or was opted for by these employees

The absence of formal Ministry of Finance approval was deemed an internal administrative lapse that could not penalize employees who acted on the pensionary status held out by the employer for decades

Regarding the MANUU petitioners, the Court held that the transfer of pro-rata liability is an inter-institutional obligation; institutional failure to resolve financial adjustments cannot be a ground to strip an employee of their vested pensionary regime and force a migration to NPS

The Court directed: (i) immediate processing of M.A. Khan’s pension with 6% interest on arrears; (ii) protection of the GPF-cum-pension status for serving employees; and (iii) the quashing of MANUU's notices requiring NPS migration. NCPUL was ordered to remit pro-rata liabilities to MANUU within 12 weeks, independent of the petitioners' continued coverage under the GPF scheme