Supreme Court Rejects Post-Retirement Plea For GPF Benefits, Cites Acceptance Of CPF Terms

The Supreme Court has rejected a retired professor’s plea for coverage under the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension Scheme (GPF Scheme), holding that he cannot seek a change after retirement as he has accepted the terms of his regularisation and benefits under the Central Provident Fund Scheme (CPF Scheme).

The Supreme Court Bench was hearing the matter (Case: K Suman Chandra v Union of India & Ors) against a Telangana High Court order that had overturned a decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad.

CPF Coverage Was Part Of Regularisation

The petitioner had joined the National Institute of Rural Development (NIRD) as a Research Associate on contract in 1984 and was covered by the CPF Scheme. His services were regularised in 1985.

He later became Assistant Director in 1992 and Deputy Director in 1999, both on a regular basis. In 2007, he was appointed Professor on contract. His service as Professor was regularised through an office order dated May 4, 2012.

The order specified that his regularisation would take effect from that date and that his service would be governed by the existing CPF Scheme.

He retired in 2017 and received his retirement benefits, including NIRD’s contribution under the CPF Scheme. He later approached the CAT, arguing that he should have been covered by the GPF Scheme under NIRD’s rules.

Earlier Case Became A Key Reference

The CAT granted him relief after relying on an earlier case involving his colleague, Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma.

The Supreme Court later overturned the orders in Sharma’s case. It held that Sharma’s regularisation took effect only from the date of his 2012 order and did not apply retrospectively to his earlier service.

The Court also noted that Sharma had not challenged the conditions attached to his regularisation, including CPF coverage.

When NIRD challenged the CAT’s order in the present case, the Telangana High Court found the two matters similar and set aside the tribunal’s decision.

Claim Was Raised Too Late

The professor argued before the Supreme Court that his case was different from Sharma’s. The Bench rejected the argument.

It noted that his own 2012 order also linked his service to the CPF Scheme and that he had never challenged this condition during his service.

The Court also took note of the fact that he approached the CAT only after retirement and after receiving CPF benefits.

The Bench agreed with its earlier reasoning in Sharma’s case and found no reason to reconsider the issue. It held that the High Court was right to reject the professor’s claim, and accordingly dismissed the petition.