SC rejects retired professor’s plea to switch from CPF to GPF after retirement: What it means for pension claims
The Supreme Court has dismissed a retired professor’s plea seeking pension benefits under the General Provident Fund (GPF)-cum-Pension Scheme instead of the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme under which he had served and received retirement benefits.
The judgment, delivered earlier this week involved K Suman Chandra, a former professor at the National Institute of Rural Development (NIRD). The bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar upheld the Telangana High Court’s decision, which had overturned an earlier ruling of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
The case offers an important lesson for employees covered by different retirement benefit schemes: accepting the terms of regularisation and receiving benefits under a particular pension scheme can make it difficult to challenge those terms later, especially after retirement.
What was the pension dispute?
Chandra joined NIRD as a contractual Research Associate in November 1984 and was covered by the CPF Scheme. His services were regularised in 1985.
Over the following years, he held several positions before becoming a professor. His services as a professor were eventually regularised through an order dated May 4, 2012.
The regularisation order specifically stated that it would take effect from the date of the order and that his service would continue to be governed by the existing CPF Scheme.
Chandra retired on January 31, 2017. He received his retirement benefits shortly afterwards, including contributions made by NIRD to his CPF account along with his own contribution.
After retirement, however, he challenged his coverage under CPF and sought to be brought under the GPF Scheme. He argued that the CPF arrangement was contrary to NIRD’s rules and service bye-laws.
What happened before the courts?
The CAT ruled in Chandra’s favour in July 2019 and directed NIRD to allow him to join the GPF Scheme from the date he became eligible.
The case was influenced by an earlier CAT ruling involving another NIRD employee, Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma, whose services had also been regularised under the same May 4, 2012 order.
However, the Supreme Court subsequently overturned Sharma’s favourable ruling in February 2023.
In that case, the apex court held that the regularisation would operate from May 4, 2012, rather than from the employee’s initial appointment. It also noted that the conditions in the regularisation order had not been challenged.
The Telangana High Court subsequently applied that reasoning to Chandra’s case and set aside the CAT’s order.
Why did the Supreme Court reject the plea?
The Supreme Court found that Chandra’s case was substantially similar to Sharma’s.
The bench noted that the May 4, 2012 regularisation order clearly stated both that regularisation would take effect from the date of issuance and that the employee would continue under the CPF Scheme.
The court also focused on the fact that Chandra did not challenge those conditions when they were imposed.
Instead, he raised the issue after retirement, having already accepted benefits under the CPF Scheme.
The Supreme Court said that after accepting the terms of regularisation and receiving CPF benefits, Chandra could not successfully challenge those terms at the post-retirement stage.
The court therefore found no reason to interfere with the high court’s decision and dismissed his special leave petition.
What does the ruling mean for employees?
The judgment highlights the importance of understanding the terms attached to employment regularisation and retirement schemes before accepting them.
For employees, a pension or provident fund choice can have significant financial consequences after retirement. If an employee accepts a particular scheme under a formal order and does not challenge its conditions at the relevant time, attempting to change the arrangement years later — particularly after receiving retirement benefits — may face significant legal hurdles.
