Authority: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

Order Date: 29 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Multiple Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs) – Nos. 491, 463, 464, 537, 267‑280 of 2024‑2025 – were filed by the Union of India, Department of Higher Education, Department of Expenditure, the Chairman, Director and Registrar of IIT (ISM) Dhanbad, and the University Grants Commission, against individual respondents (employees/residents of IIT (ISM) Dhanbad).
  • All LPAs, except LPA 537/2024, challenge the common judgment/order dated 04‑01‑2024 (and the order dated 27‑02‑2024 for LPA 537) that set aside the Board of Governors’ decision of 04‑09‑2019 which had reverted certain employees from the General Provident Fund‑cum‑Pension (GPF‑cum‑Pension) Scheme back to the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme.
  • Background: The Fourth Central Pay Commission (1983) led to Office Memorandum (O.M.) 01‑05‑1987 directing Central Government employees under CPF to shift to the Pension Scheme unless they opted to stay in CPF by 30‑09‑1987. IIT (ISM) issued a circular on 19‑12‑1987 inviting its staff to choose between CPF and GPF‑cum‑Pension, extending the option deadline to 22‑06‑1994. Subsequent Board decisions (2005, 2017) attempted to move eligible staff to GPF‑cum‑Pension; the Ministry of HRD objected, leading to the 13‑02‑2018 abeyance of the 01‑09‑2017 order.
  • On 04‑09‑2019 the Board again shifted the respondents to CPF, prompting writ petitions. The Single Judge allowed the writs on 04‑01‑2024 (and on 27‑02‑2024 for LPA 537) applying the reasoning of Kabir Dasgupta & Others, thereby reinstating the GPF‑cum‑Pension entitlement.
  • Submissions: Appellants argued that O.M. 01‑05‑1987 applied only to Central Government employees, not to autonomous institutions, and cited Supreme Court decisions (State of Rajasthan v. A.N. Mathur, University of Delhi v. Shashi Kiran) asserting the need for Visitor (President of India) approval for scheme changes. Respondents contended that the Institute’s invitation to opt for CPF was a mistake, that employees had consciously chosen CPF, and that the Supreme Court in Shashi Kiran held CPF was an exception, not a right, for post‑01‑01‑1986 hires.
  • Findings: The Court rejected the appellants’ reliance on procedural objections, noting that the Institute’s own circular adopted O.M. 01‑05‑1987 and that the mistake of seeking CPF options from post‑01‑01‑1986 hires could not prejudice the Union. It affirmed that once an illegal or void decision is made, it can be corrected irrespective of time, and that substantive benefit of the GPF‑cum‑Pension Scheme outweighs any procedural lapse.

Final Outcome

  • i. All respondents are to be treated under the GPF‑cum‑Pension Scheme.
  • ii. Retired respondents who have not yet received CPF benefits will receive pension and other retirement benefits under the GPF‑cum‑Pension Scheme.
  • iii. Retired respondents who have already received CPF benefits must refund the Government contribution made to the Institute before they can receive pension under the GPF Scheme.
  • The Court also disposed of any pending interlocutory applications.

Topics: Pension Reform, Public Sector Employment, Judicial Review