Explicit election of a retirement scheme cannot be reversed after significant delay and long-term acquiescence.

The Appellant was appointed as a Lecturer at the Respondent University on 28.09.1999 and retired as a Professor on 31.07.2025

Following a 1987 Government of India Office Memorandum (1987 OM) mandating a switch from the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) to the General Provident Fund (GPF) scheme for central employees [para. 3], the Respondent University issued its own office order in 1996

On 25.09.1996, the Appellant explicitly submitted his consent to continue under the CPF Scheme

Although the University provided another opportunity to switch in 1997, the Appellant did not exercise it

Between 2016 and 2023, the Appellant made multiple representations to switch to the GPF Scheme, which the University's Finance Committee rejected in 2018 citing financial liability

After a legal notice and RTI queries in 2024, the Appellant filed W.P.(C) 1406/2025, which was dismissed by the Single Judge on 10.02.2026

The Appellant thereafter preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

1. Whether the 1987 OM was applicable to Jamia Hamdard, a deemed university and registered society

2. Whether an employee who positively opted for the CPF Scheme in 1996 could seek a conversion to the GPF Scheme after a lapse of twenty years

3. Whether the Writ Petition was barred by the doctrine of delay and laches

Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987, which creates a "deemed" conversion to GPF unless an employee explicitly opts to stay in CPF

University of Delhi v. Smt. Shashi Kiran and Ors. (2014) [para. 14] and Manoj Pant v. JNU (2022) [para. 15], which held that in the absence of a valid option within a stipulated period, employees are deemed to have joined the pension regime.

Equitable principle of delay and laches, which precludes relief to litigants who sleep over their rights and later approach the court after significant acquiescence

The Court found that there was no evidence on record to establish that the 1987 OM was automatically applicable to the Respondent University, which is an aided minority institution and a registered society

It observed that the University's 1996 Order was distinct from the 1987 OM; while the latter provided for "deemed selection," the 1996 Order required an active choice, which the Appellant exercised by opting to remain in the CPF Scheme

The Court distinguished Shashi Kiran and Manoj Pant on the basis that those cases involved employees who had not exercised a choice and were thus beneficiaries of "deemed conversion"

the Appellant made a positive election in 1996 and failed to utilize a subsequent window in 1997

Regarding the procedural delay, the Court held that representations made starting only in 2016 did not explain the twenty-year silence since 1996

Furthermore, filing the Writ Petition in 2025—just prior to retirement and seven years after the Finance Committee's 2018 rejection—constituted terminal delay and laches

It held that the 1987 OM does not apply to the Respondent University and that the Appellant cannot reverse a validly exercised option after significant delay and long-standing acquiescence

The Court concluded that the Writ Petition was rightly dismissed due to delay and laches, as the Appellant failed to provide a rational explanation for the decades-long gap in challenging his pension status

No order as to costs was made