# Ram Swarup Rajput & Ors v. Union Of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 224
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-05
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 11186 of 2022
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-swarup-rajput-ors-v-union-of-india-ors-52823
- **Pages:** 12

## Text

224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
confers an undue advantage upon the
candidate to the prejudice of other eligible
aspirants and strikes at the very root of
fairness and transparency in the selection
process. The candidates' act of furnishing
inflated
academic
marks
constitutes
a
material misrepresentation. Their subsequent
appointment is, therefore, vitiated ab initio.
The opportunity given for rectification cannot
absolve
the
candidates
of
intentional
falsification. No estoppel can arise to protect
an appointment that is fundamentally illegal.
The very foundation of the appointment
stands vitiated by misrepresentation.

37. In the facts at hand, it is an
admitted position that the petitioners except
Preeti, Manish Kumar Mahaur, Rinku
Singh and Sweety Shokeen, deliberately
inflated the marks obtained by them in their
academic examinations while submitting
their application forms for the posts of
Assistant Teacher. Such inflation of marks
placed them in an artificially enhanced
position in the merit list, thereby enabling
them to secure appointments to a public
post to which they were not legitimately
entitled.

38. Admittedly, case of the petitioners
nos. 5, 6 & 7 in Writ-A No. 8734 of 2025,
namely, Preeti, Manish Kumar Mahaur and
Rinku Singh and petitioner no. 1 - Sweety
Shokeen in Writ-A No. 8766 of 2025 fall
within the criteria of disadvantage, thus,
their appointments are based on the merit
criteria they possess.

39.
The
records
pertaining
to
remaining petitioners, in both the petitions,
reveal a deliberate attempt of mentioning
higher marks than they actually possess in
their academic records. As per the settled
position, discussed above, they are not
entitled for any relief as being claimed for.

40.
Having
considered
the
submissions
advanced
by
learned
counsel for the parties and upon perusal
of the record, a case is made out in
favour of petitioner nos. 5, 6 & 7,
namely, Preeti, Manish Kumar Mahaur
and Rinku Singh in Writ-A No. 8734 of
2025 and petitioner no. 1- Sweety
Shokeen in Writ-A No. 8766 of 2025,
only.
The
order
impugned
dated
21.05.2025 in respect to petitioners nos.
5, 6 & 7, namely, Preeti, Manish Kumar
Mahaur and Rinku Singh in Writ-A No.
8734 of 2025 and petitioner no. 1 -
Sweety Shokeen in Writ-A No. 8766 of
2025 is quashed.

41. In view of the above, Writ-A No.
8734 of 2025 in respect of petitioner nos. 5,
6 & 7 namely, Preeti, Manish Kumar
Mahaur and Rinku Singh and Writ-A No.
8766 of 2025 in respect to petitioner no. 1 -
Sweety Shokeen are allowed. Insofar as
rest of the petitioners in both the writ
petitions are concerned no relief is granted
in their favour and the writ petitions are
dismissed.

42. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 224
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 11186 of 2022

Ram Swarup Rajput & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for consideration
12 All. Ram Swarup Rajput & Ors. Vs. Union Of India & Ors.
225
 Whether petitioners can be allowed to switchover from Contributory Provident Fund Scheme
(for short "CPF") to General Provident Fundcum-Pension Scheme (for short "GPF") after
exercising their options in the given timeline?

Headnotes
A.
Service
Law
-
An
act
whereby
petitioner has given option to continue in
CPF Scheme, would not be considered as
non-est since he joined when CPF Scheme
was enforced. (Para 16)

In present case, petitioner - 1 was appointed on
the post of Teacher (Mechanic B) in respondent
institution on 27.04.1978 and retired from the
post of Senior Technical Superintendent on
30.06.2013. The petitioner - 3 was appointed
post of Teacher on 19.07.1982 and retired on
31.07.2014 whereas petitioner - 2 has joined
his duties on 31.08.1990 and retired on
31.07.2016, therefore, case of petitioner - 2 has
to be considered separately since he has joined
services in the year 1990 i.e. subsequent to
O.M.
dated
01.05.1987
and
adopted
by
respondent - IIT on 11.09.1987. (Para 14)

B. Delay in approaching this Court - It was
default of the respondent institution,
therefore, delay will not come in the way
if this writ petition is allowed qua to
petitioner - 2 viz. Phool Singh Chauhan. (Para
15)

C. Petitioners - 1 and 3 have admittedly
given option to stay with CPF Scheme not
only once but twice i.e. firstly on 09.10.1987
and 19.10.1987 respectively and secondly on
06.02.1992 and 07.02.1992 respectively, despite
they have opportunities to shift to GPF Scheme.
They were granted third opportunity after 15 years
of their respective services, still they have not
come over to GPF Scheme, therefore, they have
failed to exercise their right, if any. (Para 17)

OM
dated
01.05.1987
was
not
automatically
adopted
by
respondent
institution rather it was adopted by an
independent act which they took on
11.09.1987 with a specific timeline that
options could be exercised by 30.12.1987
if they wanted to remain in CPF Scheme
and admittedly, petitioners - 1 and 3 have given
option to remain in CPF on 09.10.1987 and
19.10.1987 respectively, therefore, they are
bound by said option and question of non-est
would not be applicable in given circumstances
of the case. (Para 19)

Writ petition allowed qua to petitioner - 2.
Writ petition dismissed qua to petitioners
- 1 and 3. (E-4)

Case Law Cited:
1. University of Delhi Vs. Smt. Shashi Kiran and
others, (2022) 15 SCC 325 (Para 7)
2. Priyanka Upadhyay Vs. Union of India and
others, 2025:AHC:37820 (Para 7)
3. Prof. Harish Chandra Chaudhary and others
Vs.
The
Union
of
India
and
others,
2025:AHC:69579-DB (Para 7)
4. Dr. S.K. Pant Professor and others Vs. Union
of India and others, 2025:AHC:203155 (Para 7)

List of Keywords
 Contributory
Provident
Fund,
teacher,
retirement benefits, GPF.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Pramod Kumar, Sanjeev
Singh
For Respondent(s): A.S.G.I., Rohan Gupta

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Petitioners (3 in numbers) are
aggrieved that their applications to allow
them to switch-over from Contributory
Provident Fund Scheme (for short "CPF")
to General Provident Fund-cum-Pension
Scheme (for short "GPF") were rejected
vide order dated 16.09.2021.

2. The petitioners - 1, 2 and 3 have
worked
as
Teacher
(Mechanic-B),
Instrumentation
Engineer
(Chemical
Engineering) and Teacher respectively in
Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur.

3. In the impugned order, there are
reference
of
as
many
as
11
226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
letters/communications
whereby
earlier
also, aforesaid claim of petitioners was
rejected and by way of amendment sought
in
this
writ
petition,
all
letters/communications are also challenged.

4.
Before
considering
rival
submissions, few facts which would be
relevant are mentioned below :-

"a. The Government of India
has issued an Office Memorandum dated
01.05.1987 on a subject "Change over of
the Central Government employees from
the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme
to Pension Scheme-Implementation of the
commendations of the Fourth Central Pay
Commission. Salient features of said
Office
Memorandum
are
reproduced
hereinafter:

1. The undersigned is directed to
state
that
the
Central
Government
employees who are governed by the
Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPF
Scheme) have been given repeated options
in the past to come over to the Pension
Scheme. The last such option was given in
the Department of Personnel and Training
O.M. No. F3(1)-Pension unit/85 dated the
6th June, 1985. However, some Central
Government employees still continue under
the CPF Scheme. The Fourth Central Pay
Commission has now recommended that all
CPF beneficiaries in service on January 1,
1986, should be deemed to have come over
to the Pension Scheme on that date unless
they specifically opt out to continue under
the CPF Scheme.

2. After careful consideration the
President is pleased to decide that the said
recommendation shall be accepted and
implemented in the manner hereinafter
indicated.

3. All CPF beneficiaries, who
were in service on 1.1.1986 and who are
still in service on the date of issue of these
orders will be deemed to have come over to
the Pension Scheme.

3.2. The employees of the category
mentioned above will, however, have an
option to continue under the CPF Scheme, if
they so desire. The option will have to be
exercised and conveyed to the concerned
Head of Office by 30.09.1987 in the form
enclosed if the employees wish to continue
under the CPF Scheme. If no option is
received by the Head of Office by the above
date the employees will be deemed to have
come over to the Pension Scheme.

3.3. The CPF beneficiaries, who
were in service on 1.1.1986, but have since
retired and in whose case retirement
benefits have also been paid under the CPF
Scheme, will have an option to have their
retirement benefits calculated under the
Pension Scheme provided they refund to
the
Government,
the
Government
contribution to the Contributory Provident
Fund and the interest thereon, drawn by
them at the time of settlement of the CPF
Account. Such option shall be exercised
latest by 30.09.1987.

3.4.
In
the
case
of
CPF
beneficiaries, who were in service on
1.1.1986 but have since retired, and in
whose case the CPF Account has not
already been paid, will be allowed
retirement benefits as if they were borne on
pensionable establishments unless they
specifically opt by 30.09.1987 to have their
retirement benefits settled under the CPF
Scheme.

3.5
in
the
case
of
CPF
beneficiaries, who were in service on
12 All. Ram Swarup Rajput & Ors. Vs. Union Of India & Ors.
227
1.1.1986, but have since died. Either before
retirement or after retirement, the case will
be settled in accordance with para 3.3 or
3.4 above as the case may be. Options in
such cases will be exercised latest by
30.09.1987 by the widow/widower and in
the absence of widow/widower by the
eldest surviving member of the family who
would have otherwise been eligible to
family pension under the Family Pension
Scheme if such scheme were applicable.

3.6 The option once exercised
shall be final.

3.7 In the types of cases covered
by paragraph 3.3 and 3.5 involving refund
of
Government's
contribution
to
the
contributory provident fund together with
interest drawn at the time of retirement, the
amount will have to be refunded latest by
the 30th September, 1987. If the amount is
not refunded by the said date, simple
interest thereon will be payable at 10% per
annum
for period
of delay
beyond
30.9.1987.

b.
The
Indian
Institute
of
Technology, Kanpur has adopted above
referred
Office
Memorandum
dated
01.05.1987 by an Office Order dated
11.09.1987. For reference, said office order
is quoted below in its entirety :-

"1. The Fourth Central Pay
Commission has recommended that C.P.F.
beneficiaries in service on January 1, 1986
should be deemed to have come over to the
pension scheme on that date unless they
specifically opt out to continue under the
C.P.F. Scheme.

2. The aforesaid recommendations
have
been
accepted
by
the
Central
Government vide O.M. No.4/1/87-PIC dated
1.5.1987, a copy of which is attached to this
circular. The Chairman, B.O.G. has approved
implementation of the aforesaid orders to the
employees of this Institute.

3.
All
employees
who
are
governed by Schedule C-Contributory
Provident
Fund
and
Schedule
EContributory
Provident
Fund-cumGratuity Scheme and who were in service
on 1.1.1986 shall be deemed to have come
over to Schedule F-General Provident
Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme
w.e.f. 1.1.1986. However, the employees
are given an option to continue under the
C.P.F. Scheme, if they so desire. The
option shall have to be exercised in the
form enclosed and submitted to the
Administration Section by 30.10.1987. In
the case of employees who are on long leave
out of India or are on deputation or are
otherwise away from the Institute, the option
can be exercised by 31.12.1987. The Faculty
Members and others whose personal files are
maintained by the Dean of Faculties, the
options should be submitted to the Dean of
Faculties. If no option is received by the
above date the employees will be deemed to
have come over to the Pension Scheme.

4. The employees who exercise an
option to continue under the C.P.F. Scheme
will henceforth be governed by Schedule EC.P.F.-cum-Gratuity Scheme, and will be
eligible for retirement gratuity and Death
Gratuity in accordance with provisions of
Government of India O.M. No.4/1/87-PIC-II
dated 1.5.1987 (copy enclosed). Schedule CC.P.F. Scheme will cease to be operative."

5. As referred above, while adopting
the O.M. dated 01.05.1987 by way of
Circular dated 11.09.1987, a date to give
option to continue in CPF Scheme was
extended from 30.09.1987 to 30.10.1987.
228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. Following are the details which are
undisputed so far as repeated options
submitted by respective petitioners to
continue with CPF Scheme and a chart
mentioned in written submission filed by
learned counsel for respondents is scanned
and pasted below :-

7. Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Pramod Kumar,
learned advocate for petitioners has placed
reliance on various paragraphs of a
judgment passed by Supreme Court in
University of Delhi vs. Smt. Shashi Kiran
and
others,
(2022)
15
SCC
325,
judgments
passed
by
this
Court
in
Priyanka Upadhyay vs. Union of India
and others, 2025:AHC:37820 and a
judgment of Division Bench of this Court
in Prof. Harish Chandra Chaudhary and
others vs. The Union of India and others,
2025:AHC:69579-DB wherein judgment
of Priyanka Upadhyay (supra) was
upheld.

8. Per contra, Ms. Kriti Gupta,
Advocate holding brief of Sri Rohan Gupta,
learned
counsel
for
respondents
has
opposed above submissions and has also
referred the judgment of this Court in Dr.
S.K. Pant Professor and others vs. Union
of India and others, 2025:AHC:203155.

9. Crux of argument of learned Senior
Advocate appearing for petitioners is that
once the Office Memorandum dated
01.05.1987 is adopted and petitioners have
not submitted their option to continue in
CPF Scheme before cut off date fixed
therein i.e. 30.09.1987, any subsequent act
by submitting option to remain in CPF
Scheme in the garb of various extension
granted by respondents would be non-est
and petitioners are deemed to be switched
over to GPF-cum-Pension Scheme as soon
as said O.M. was adopted by respondentIIT and no option was submitted before the
relevant date i.e. 30.09.1987 and for that
learned Senior Advocate has referred
following part of University of Delhi vs.
Smt. Shashi Kiran (supra) is mentioned
below :-

"47.Krishena Kumar [Krishena
Kumar v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC
207 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 112] was a case
where the retirees from two categories,
namely, Pension Fund and Provident Fund,
were taken to be distinct and different and
as such the plea on the ground of
discrimination
was
rejected.
As
the
judgment of the Division Bench discloses,
the matter was considered by it from the
standpoint of discrimination between the
12 All. Ram Swarup Rajput & Ors. Vs. Union Of India & Ors.
229
same category of persons, that is to say,
those who had opted to be under CPF. The
different groups in the same category were:

47.1.
Those
who
had
not
exercised any option but continued to make
payment of contribution towards CPF (R.N.
Virmani [R.N. Virmani v. University of
Delhi, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2799] batch
of cases).

47.2. Those who exercised the
option to be under CPF but the option was
exercised after the cut-off. Since the option
was exercised after the cut-off, they were
deemed to have "come over" to GPF and
were granted benefit (N.C. Bakshi [N.C.
Bakshi v. Union of India, 2014 SCC
OnLine Del 2798] batch of cases).

47.3. Those who consciously
exercised the option to be under CPF; but
taking advantage of further options granted
through 11 extensions to switch over, had
been allowed to "come over" to GPF (2469
employees).

48. It was against these three subcategories coming from the same category
of employees that the argument of
discrimination was considered by the
Division Bench. Such was not the case in
Krishena Kumar [Krishena Kumar v.
Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 207 : 1991
SCC (L&S) 112] or Rajasthan Rajya
Vidyut Vitran [Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut
Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Dwarka Prasad
Koolwal, (2015) 12 SCC 51 : (2016) 1 SCC
(L&S) 315] . The matter was further
considered by the Division Bench in the
context of the employees of educational
institutions such as IITs, who are directly
under the Central Government, just as the
employees of the University, which is a
Central University. If the option was
allowed to be exercised by granting
extension to the employees of the other
educational institutions, the Division Bench
did not find any reason why similar
choice/option could not be given to the
employees in Shashi Kiran [Shashi Kiran
v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 5759 of
2010 sub nom Kanta Batra v. Union of
India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2797] batch
of cases. Additionally, the feature that has
been presented through the documents
which have subsequently come on record is
that even with respect to the employees of
insurance corporations similar options and
extensions were granted.

49. The differential treatment
afforded to those 2469 employees as
against the employees in Shashi Kiran
[Shashi Kiran v. Union of India, WP (C)
No. 5759 of 2010 sub nom Kanta Batra v.
Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del
2797] batch of cases, was not founded on
any rationale. No justifiable reason was
coming forth. If those 2469 employees
could be afforded chance to exercise an
option of switch over to GPF, even though
they had consciously opted to be under
CPF, on principle of parity or equality, the
case was certainly made out.

51. According to the Notification
dated 1-5-1987, the employees joining the
service after 1-1-1986 would always be
under GPF. With respect to those who were
in service on 1-1-1986, said employees
would be deemed to have "come over" to
GPF unless an option to continue to be
under CPF was consciously exercised
before the cut-off date. Thus, when the
Scheme was framed and was sought to be
implemented, the authorities concerned
must have taken into account the entire
magnitude
such
as,
the
number
of
employees and the likelihood of impact on
230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the management of the fund, so that
reasonable returns can be effected by way
of pension upon retirement of such persons.
Going by the intent of the notification,
those who were to opt for CPF, were an
exception and the general rule was that
everybody after 1-1-1986 would normally
be covered by GPF. It is in this context that
the number of original petitioners in Shashi
Kiran [Shashi Kiran v. Union of India, WP
(C) No. 5759 of 2010 sub nom Kanta Batra
v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del
2797] batch of cases has to be seen. We are
concerned with only 75 persons. On the
other hand, the bulk of people, namely,
2469 employees were granted the choice of
reverse switch over and they were allowed
all the benefits under GPF. It can
reasonably
be
said
that
when
the
Notification dated 1-5-1987 was issued,
the authorities were conscious of the
possibility that all the employees may
"come
over"
to
GPF.
With
that
possibility
in
mind,
the
fund
was
constituted and the affairs were arranged.
The shift of those 75 employees would
not in any way affect the strength and the
character of the fund if a direction that
the entire contribution made by the
authorities be returned with reasonable
rate of interest is issued. These 75
petitioners had approached the Court in
the year 2010. At this length of time, it is
not as if any floodgates are going to open
and there will be drain on the resources
of the State. A direction can, therefore, be
issued, as was done by the learned Single
Judge in para 20 of his judgment in R.N.
Virmani [R.N. Virmani v. University of
Delhi, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2799] batch
of cases and which aspect was mentioned
in the Letter dated 23-1-2017 referred to
in para 31.4 hereinabove, for recouping
the contribution under CPF with 8%
simple interest per annum."

10. Per contra, learned counsel for
respondents has submitted that :-

i. The IIT Statutes provide for
following three schemes for its employees
who can exercise their option even at the
time of appointment :-

a. Contributory Provident Fund
(under Schedule C of the IIT Statutes)

b. Contributory Provident Fundcum-Gratuity Scheme (under Schedule E of
the IIT Statutes)

c. General Provident Fund-cumPension-cum-Gratuity
Scheme
(under
Schedule F of the IIT Statutes).

The Petitioners for the first time
exercised their option to be governed by the
Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity
Scheme (under Schedule E of the IIT
Statutes).

iii. Therefore, in this manner the
Respondent Institute had adopted and
amended the Om dated 01.05.1987 which
only provided an option to switch from
CPF to Pension Scheme to suit the
requirements
of
the
Institute
which
provided three different schemes for its
employees.

iv. Request for change over made
for the first in 2009 much after the expiry
of their 15 years of continuous service.
Further, another request was made by only
Petitioner No. 1 on 30.05.2012 which came
to be rejected for the first time on
18.07.2012. The said communication has
not been challenged by the Petitioner and
has attained finality. Thereafter, subsequent
orders have been passed rejecting the same
request for changeover.
12 All. Ram Swarup Rajput & Ors. Vs. Union Of India & Ors.
231

11. She also has referred some
documents annexed in counter affidavit and
for
reference,
Office
Order
dated
16.01.1992 and 10.06.1998 are quoted
below in its entirety :-

"16.01.1992

OFFICE ORDER

Sub- Exercise of option for
change-over from Contributory Provident
Fund-cum-|Gratuty Scheme (Schedule'E')
to General Provident Fund-cum-Pensioncum-Gratuty Scheme (Schedule 'F')

Further to Office Order No. Adm.
26(G)/87-IITK/372 dated 11.09.1987, NoAdm.
26
(G)/90-IITK/1221
dated
23.01.1991 and No. DF/C-2/90-IITK dated
03.07.90, the Board of Governors of the
Institute have been pleased to allow another
opportunity to the members of the staff of
the Institute viz. Group A,B,C and D
(including Scientific employees for whom
option was not provided owing to nonrevision of their scales) who were in
Institute Service on 01.01.1986 to come
over to the Pension-cum-Gratuty scheme in
accordance
with
the
provision
of
Government of India, O.M. No. 4/1/87/PIC
dated 01.05.1987. This opportunity of
exercising option would also be applicable
to the persons who have meanwhile retired
from service and other CPF beneficiaries
who since died, either before retirement or
after retirement. In the later case the
families of the deceased would be entitled
to give an option to have the benefit of
pension
scheme.
In
such
cases
the
contribution
of
the
Institute
to
the
contributory provident fund together with
interest will have to be refunded to the
Institute in one lumpsum. Interest would
also have to be paid to the Institute on the
amount of Institute contribution and
interest received by the beneficiaries from
the date of receipt to the date of refund at
the rate of ten percent.

5.
Heads
of
the
Departments/Sections/Units are requested
to bring these orders to the notice of all the
employees who are/were working under
them. No action is required in respect of
employee who are already governed by
Schedule 'F' General Provident Fund-cumPension-cum-Gratuity Scheme.

6. It is to be emphasized that the
option for change over to Pension Scheme
is being extended as a matter of good
gesture to the employees. No such change
over would be permissible in future. In
view of the benefits available under the
Pension Scheme, the employees in their
own interest are requested to avail of the
opportunity.

10.06.1998

OFFICE ORDER

Sub- Exercise of option for
change over from contributory Provident
Fund-cum-Gratuity Scheme (Schedule 'E')
to General Provident Fund cum Pension
cum Gratuity Scheme (Schedule 'F')

Ref. 1998/Ist BOG meeting held
on April 21, 1998

1. Further to Office Order No.
Adm 26(G)87-IITK/372 dated 11.09.1987,
No. DF/C-2/90 IITK dated 03.07.1990, No.
Adm.
26(G)/90-IITK/1221
dated
23.01.1991, and No. Adm. 26(G)/92-
IITK/1508 dated January 16, 1992, the
Board of Governor of the Institute in the
meeting held on April 21, 1998 considered
232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the request of staff/faculty members of the
Institute and decided as under:-

a. CPF subscribers in service in
IIT Kanpur as on 01.04.1998 be given the
option to switch over (irreversibly) to GPFcum-Pension
Scheme
with
immediate
effect.

b. CPF Subscribers who are not
switching now be allowed to switch over
(irreversibly) upto the end of 15 years of
their continuous service at the Institute.

c. A new entrant to CPF Scheme
(after 1.04.1998) be also given an option on
analogoue basis with reference to the
decision at (b) above.

2. All CPF subscribers, who are
eligible for pension or would become
eligible for pension, may exercise their
option to switch over to GPF-cum-Gratuity
Scheme by filing and returning the annexed
form so as to reach A.O. (Admin) or DOFA
(as the case may be) on or before 30.07.98.
The option once exercised shall be deemed
final."

12. Heard learned counsel for parties
and perused the records.

13.
In
order
to
consider
rival
submissions, paragraph 30 of Priyanka
Upadhyay
(supra)
being
relevant
is
mentioned below :-

"30. The outcome of above
discussion is that:

(a) The case of employees of
Banaras Hindu University is factually on a
different footing than the employees of
Delhi University.

(b) Banaras Hindu University has
adopted the Office Memorandum dated
01.05.1987 issued by Government of India
by a notification dated 09.04.1988, i.e.,
much after the original cut off date, i.e.,
30.09.1987, and has fixed the new cut off
date, i.e., 09.07.1988 to submit option and
since said notification is not under
challenge, therefore, while applying the
judgment of Supreme Court in University
of Delhi vs. Smt. Shashi Kiran (supra),
above
referred
dates
rendered
it
distinguishable.

(c) If the law as held by Supreme
Court in University of Delhi vs. Smt.
Shashi Kiran (supra) is applied in the facts
and circumstances of present cases taking
note of above referred dates, the only
interpretation would be that any option
given beyond 09.07.1988 would non est,
however, on basis of record, none of
petitioners have a case that they have opted
to remain in earlier CPF Scheme on basis
of above cut off date rather their claim was
taken birth only after Banaras Hindu
University
adopted
the
Scheme
on
09.04.1988 and they have given option
before new cut off date, i.e., 09.07.1988,
therefore, the benefit of judgment in
University of Delhi vs. Smt. Shashi Kiran
(supra) would not be applicable to present
petitioners. Any other interpretation would
render date of adoption and any subsequent
cut off date meaningless.

(d) It is not the case of petitioners
or Respondent-Banaras Hindu University
or even Union of India that Office
Memorandum
dated
01.05.1987
was
automatically applicable to all Central
Universities without being its specific
adoption by a particular University and
further that issue was not before the
12 All. Ram Swarup Rajput & Ors. Vs. Union Of India & Ors.
233
Supreme Court in the case of University of
Delhi vs. Smt. Shashi Kiran (supra)."

14. In present case, petitioner - 1 was
appointed
on
the
post
of
Teacher
(Mechanic B) in respondent institution on
27.04.1978 and retired from the post of
Senior
Technical
Superintendent
on
30.06.2013. The petitioner - 3 was
appointed post of Teacher on 19.07.1982
and
retired
on
31.07.2014
whereas
petitioner - 2 has joined his duties on
31.08.1990 and retired on 31.07.2016,
therefore, case of petitioner - 2 has to be
considered separately since he has joined
services in the year 1990 i.e. subsequent to
O.M. dated 01.05.1987 and adopted by
respondent - IIT on 11.09.1987 and his
case would squarely cover with the case of
one Sushil Kumar Singh as considered by
the Division Bench of this Court in Prof.
Harish Chandra Chaudhary (supra) and
for reference, paragraph - 57 of Harish
Chandra Chaudhary (supra) is quoted
below :-

"57.
Having
considered
the
respective submissions advanced in respect
of the claim of Sri Sinha, we find that on
the date of his substantive appointment in
BHU i.e. 9.7.1990, he was covered by the
pension scheme. Even his temporary
appointment in the BHU on 9th July, 1988,
was after the cut-off-date i.e. 1.1.1986. It is
clearly revealed that he had objected to his
inclusion in the CPF Scheme. He was in
fact included in the pension scheme, but it
was on account of resolution of the
Executive Council, dated 19-20th July,
2002, that such benefit was withdrawn
from him. There was otherwise no occasion
for him to be extended the option to
continue under the CPF Scheme. He has
been representing against such decision and
has approached the Court after the issue has
been settled by the Supreme Court. In the
facts of the case, we find that his case is
clearly covered by the pension scheme and
the question of exercising any option by
him, to continue under the CPF Scheme, is
not
countenanced
under
the
Office
Memorandum, dated 1.5.1987. The BHU
on its own has accepted the claim of Dr.
Sushil
Kumar
Singh
in
similar
circumstances in 2013. There is otherwise
no prior adjudication of the claim of Sri
Sinha by this Court."

15. So far as argument of learned
counsel for respondent - IIT that there is a
delay
in
approaching
this
Court
is
concerned, Court finds that it was default
of the respondent institution, therefore,
delay will not come in the way if this writ
petition is allowed qua to petitioner - 2 viz.
Phool Singh Chauhan.

16. So far as an act whereby said
petitioner has given option to continue in
CPF Scheme is concerned, it would not be
considered as non-est since he joined when
CPF Scheme was enforced as the same has
been held in Prof. Harish Chandra
Chaudhary (supra).

17. So far as petitioners - 1 and 3 are
concerned, admittedly, they have given
option to stay with CPF Scheme not only
once but twice i.e. firstly on 09.10.1987
and 19.10.1987 respectively and secondly
on 06.02.1992 and 07.02.1992 respectively,
despite they have opportunities to shift to
GPF Scheme. They were granted third
opportunity
after
15
years
of
their
respective services, still they have not come
over to GPF Scheme, therefore, they have
failed to exercise their right, if any.

18. The argument of learned Senior
Advocate for said petitioners that since
234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
O.M. dated 01.05.1987 whereby last date to
give option was fixed for 30.09.1987 with a
declaration that if an employee did not give
option to remain in earlier scheme, he will
be deemed to be switched over of GPF
Scheme, therefore, once institution has
adopted said O.M. by their Office Order
dated 11.09.1987, they are deemed to be
switched
over
to
GPF
Scheme.
Notwithstanding any option given to
remain in GPF Scheme since it would be
non-est.

19. Aforesaid argument of learned
Senior Counsel on face of it appears to
be attractive, however, still there are two
factors which go against aforesaid
submissions
that
firstly
OM
dated
01.05.1987
was
not
automatically
adopted by respondent-institution rather
it was adopted by an independent act
which they took on 11.09.1987 with a
specific timeline that options could be
exercised by 30.12.1987 if they wanted
to
remain
in
CPF
Scheme
and
admittedly, petitioners - 1 and 3 have
given option to remain in CPF on
09.10.1987 and 19.10.1987 respectively,
therefore, they are bound by said option
and question of non-est would not be
applicable in given circumstances of the
case.

20. In this regard, Court again takes
note of paragraph 30 (c) of Priyanka
Upadhyay (supra) which was upheld by
Division Bench of this Court and for
reference, said paragraph 30(c) is quoted
below :-

"30. The outcome of above
discussion is that:

a. .........

b. .........

(c) If the law as held by
Supreme Court in University of Delhi
vs. Smt. Shashi Kiran (supra) is applied
in the facts and circumstances of present
cases taking note of above referred
dates, the only interpretation would be
that any option given beyond 09.07.1988
would non est, however, on basis of
record, none of petitioners have a case
that they have opted to remain in
earlier CPF Scheme on basis of above
cut off date rather their claim was
taken birth only after Banaras Hindu
University adopted the Scheme on
09.04.1988 and they have given option
before
new
cut
off
date,
i.e.,
09.07.1988, therefore, the benefit of
judgment in University of Delhi vs.
Smt. Shashi Kiran (supra) would not be
applicable to present petitioners. Any
other interpretation would render date
of adoption and any subsequent cut off
date meaningless."

21. Considering overall circumstances
of the case, this Court does not find that
claim as sought by petitioners - 1 and 3 has
any force, therefore, their claim cannot be
allowed on basis of above discussion,
hence, rejected.

22. So far as petitioner - 2 is
concerned, his claim has already been
accepted in preceding paragraph of this
judgment. The said petitioner has to return
the amount towards CPF with 5% simple
interest. The University will fix the period
for such return.

23. In view of above, this writ petition
is allowed qua to petitioner - 2 and it is
dismissed qua to petitioners - 1 and 3.
----------
12 All. C/M, Ram Bharose Maiku Lal Inter College Lko & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
235
(2025) 12 ILRA 235
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ A No. 13771 of 2025

C/M, Ram Bharose Maiku Lal Inter College
Lko & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for consideration
 Whether disapproval of District Inspector of
Schools of the resolution of Committee of
Management for suspension of the services of
respondent no. 6 is sustainable in the eyes of
law?

Headnotes
A. Service Law
- U.P. Intermediate
Education Act 1921: Section 16(G)(5) -
Brief reasons must be recorded while
disapproving the suspension order, which
apparently is lacking in the present
matter. (Para 15)

(a) On examining the impugned order dated
06.10.2025 on law and facts, it emerges that
the DISs, after receiving the papers from the
petitioners,
concluded
it,
on
mainly
five
grounds. So far as
the provision for
constituting sub-committee is concerned,
that has been prescribed u/regulation 35,
which in fact regarding the enquiry and
not for passing the suspension order. (Para
16, 17)

(b) Ground no. 2, which reads that 'no
approved
chargesheet
was
served
upon
respondent no. 6' cannot be the zone of
consideration of approval or disapproval of the
suspension order, whereas, the DISs could
have
applied
his
mind
on
the
evidence/records sent by the Committee
of Management, u/Regulation 39 and the
provisions of section 16(G)(5) should have
strictly been followed. Therefore, the second
ground also goes against the mandate of the act
and regulations. (Para 18)

(c)
The
third
ground
states
that
the
chargesheet dated 10.01.2025, is not approved
by the Committee of Management,' whereas,
the DISs should have applied his mind on
the
material/evidence
regarding
the
suspension order and not the chargesheet.
(Para 19)

(d) The DISs, has said that since no evidence
was made available by the Committee of
Management for approval of the suspension
order, therefore, the conditions prescribed u/s
16(G)(5) are not fulfilled, thus, the suspension
order has been disapproved, whereas, Section
16(G)(5)
laid
the
first
ground
for
consideration regarding the nature of the
charges and there is not a single whisper
in the order dated 06.10.2025, to discuss
the seriousness of the charges, thus, there
seems to be the non-application of mind of the
DISs. (Para 20)

(e)
The
DISs
while
taking
decision
regarding approval or disapproval, on
suspension
order,
shall
record,
brief
reasons, but so far as the case in hand is
concerned that too is missing, as no
reason has been recorded, for disapproval of
the recommendation of the Committee of
Management, in the order impugned dated
06.10.2025. Consequently, the order dated
06.10.2025 is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
(Para 21)

The matter is relegated back to the DISs to pass
a fresh order.

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
Committee of Management, D.P.S.N. Inter
College, Kanpur & Anr Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.,
2018 (2) ADJ 840 (Para 6)

List of Acts
 U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921.

List of Keywords
 service, suspension, committee, management,
education, approval, disapproval.