Mr. Rajat Aneja, Ms. Shivangi Chawla and Ms. Chandrika Gupta, Advs v. NETAJI SUBHAS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY ANR

Judgment

1. The petitioners herein invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking the following reliefs against the respondents herein: “(i) Issue a Writ in the nature of MANDAMUS and/or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction of like nature thereby commanding the Respondents to forthwith implement and apply the General Provident Fund (GPF)-cum-Pension Scheme to the Petitioners working with the Respondent No. 1 University, having Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:16.01.2025 18:46:45 W.P.(C) 6201/2022 Page 1 of 31 i.e. the Respondent No.2 been appointed prior to 01.01.2004, and as already approved by the 46th Meeting of the Board of Governors of the Respondent No. 1 held on 20.02.2017 and also duly approved by the Government of NCT of Delhi terms of letter/direction dated 18.05.2020 to the Respondent No. 1; and (ii) Issue a Writ of PROHIBITION thereby restraining the Respondent No. 1 to thrust upon the Petitioners the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme as an interim measure and to consequently direct the Respondent No. 1 to provide to the Petitioners with the opportunity to opt for GPF-cum-Pension; and to pass appropriate orders thereby giving effect to the GPF scheme forthwith; in the light of the facts and circumstances as narrated hereinabove. Any other Order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the Petitioners and against the Respondents.” FACTUAL MATRIX 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, admittedly the petitioners herein, who are five in number, were appointed as regular employees of the respondent No.1 i.e., Netaji Subhas University of Technology (formerly, Delhi Institute of Technology) [„NSUT‟] prior

01.01.2004 and have since been serving as the permanent employees respondent No.1/NSUT, autonomous body/institution established and fully funded by the respondent No.2 i.e., Government of NCT of Delhi [„GNCTD‟] and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as on 12.06.1987. 3. The principal issue raised by the writ petitioners herein is whether they are entitled to get retirement benefits under the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme [„GPF Scheme‟] in view of the fact that their respective dates of appointment fall prior to 01.01.2004. The said date finds relevance by virtue of the Office Memorandum [„OM‟] dated 15.03.2004 (Annexure P-7) issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, which is stated to have Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:16.01.2025 18:46:45 W.P.(C) 6201/2022 Page 2 of 31 limited the applicability of the GPF Scheme to only those employees who had joined the autonomous body before 01.01.2004. The letter dated 15.03.2004 is reproduced hereinunder: “OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Applicability of new pension scheme to the employees of autonomous bodies/PSUs under the administrative control of different Central Ministries/Departments. The undersigned is directed to refer to this Departments OM No. 1/(13)/EV/2001 dated 13th November 2003, on the subject mentioned above. from autonomous Over the past few months, this Department has been receiving letters directly institutions/PSUs seeking clarifications regarding the date of implementation of the new pension scheme and its applicability to the new entrants joining autonomous bodies/PSUs. The desired clarifications have been considered in consultation with Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance and Department of Pension & Pensioners‟ Welfare. It is clarified that irrespective of any factor, the applicability of existing pension scheme or new pension scheme to the new entrants will be determined solely with reference to the date of their joining. Accordingly, all persons joining any autonomous body/ PSU under the administrative control of different Ministries/ Departments on or after 01.01.2004 will compulsorily be covered by the new pension scheme with the GPF-cum-pension Scheme being limited to employees who had joined before 01.01.2004. This will also hold good for all new entrants in the Central Government.” (bold emphasis supplied)

4. Attention of this Court has been drawn to a letter dated

16.03.2000 issued by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, New Delhi addressed to the Financial Advisor, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, inter alia directing as under: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:16.01.2025 18:46:45 W.P.(C) 6201/2022 Page 3 of 31 Insurance Corporation of “4. In view of the above, we have been advising the autonomous bodies under various Ministries/Departments of the Government of India to continue to follow the CPF Scheme or that the autonomous bodies, if so desire, may work out an annuity scheme through the Life India based on voluntary contributions by the employees and without any contribution from the Government or the employees may join the pension scheme introduced by the Ministry of Labour for the PF subscribers. It may please be noted that introduction of the pension scheme on the GOI pattern to the employees of autonomous bodies should not be agreed to as a rule; any exception in this regard should be referred to this Department.”

5. The reasons accorded by the Ministry for issuing such advice, as found in the letter dated 16.03.2000, are reproduced hereinunder: - “The Department of Expenditure has been receiving a number of proposals regarding introduction of pension scheme on GOI pattern for the employees of autonomous bodies under various Ministries/ Departments of the Government of India. Such proposals have not been approved mainly for the reasons given below:- (i) The cost of introduction of pension scheme is much higher than the CPF Scheme. The cost of pension scheme keeps on increasing with every increase/ revision in the scales of pay/ pensionary benefits recommended by the successive Pay Commissions set up by the Government. (ii) While the CPF is a one-time payment, pension is the life long commitment on the part of the Government. (iii) For serving a pension scheme, a Pension Fund has to be set up to be managed by a Trust. Difficulties may be experienced in the judicious administration of the Fund. (iv) In case of winding up of the organization, the Government may have to take over the entire liability of the Pension Fund. (v) Any cut-off date fixed by the Government is not likely to be accepted by the employees who retired prior to the cut-off date. Apart from the above, the recurring financial implications of introduction of pension scheme in autonomous bodies are likely to be very substantial, particularly after acceptance of recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission, involving a significant liberalization of the provisions relating to pension, gratuity, commutation of pension, family pension, etc. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:16.01.2025 18:46:45 W.P.(C) 6201/2022 Page 4 of 31 We have however, come across a number of cases where pension scheme on Government of India pattern has been allowed for the employees of the autonomous bodies either with the approval of the Internal Finance Division or with the approval of the Financial Adviser of the Ministry / Department concerned without obtaining this department's concurrence. In one such case, the Department concerned is now faced with a situation where the Pension Fund set up for the employees of an autonomous body has become unviable, there being no possibility of disbursing pension to the pensioners without seeking Government's support in the form of grants-in- aid.”

6. It is borne from the record that upon receipt of the letter dated

16.03.2000, the Board of Governors of the respondent No.1/NSUT [„BOG‟] in its 22nd Meeting held on 29.06.2001, decided to seek a clarification from the respondent No.2/GNCTD regarding the same, besides proposing that pending final decision on the said issue, the new entrants joining the service of the NSUT on or after 01.01.2001 be allowed to opt only for the Contributory Provident Fund-cum- Gratuity Scheme [„CPF Scheme‟], as an interim measure. The relevant extract of the Agenda as well as the Minutes of the 22nd meeting of the Board of Governors of the respondent No.1/NSUT, held on 29.06.2001, are reproduced hereinunder: “4. In view of the above position, it is for consideration as to whether the Institute should adopt CPF-cum-Gratuity Scheme for its employees and discourage / discontinue GPF-cum- Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme for its employees. In this context, it may be stated that AICTE Notification regarding the revised pay scales and service conditions of the teachers recently approved by the Board of Governors at its last meeting provides that “Teachers, if entitled may be given pension and other retirement benefits at rates applicable to the Central/ State Government Employees, whenever pension scheme is in operation”.

5. In the event of a decision being taken to adopt the CPF-cum Gratuity Scheme for the Institute Employees, it is proposed that: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:16.01.2025 18:46:45 W.P.(C) 6201/2022 Page 5 of 31 (i) (ii) (iii) The status quo may be maintained for the existing employees of the institute. However, if any of the employees wishes to change over the CPF-cum- Gratuity Scheme, he / she may be allowed to do so by exercising his/ her option in its favour; The new entrants joining the service of the Institute after December, 2000, i.e. the date of the Letter of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, may be allowed to opt only for the CPF Scheme; and Those who join the Institute service from other Government Departments/ Organizations where they were governed by the GPF Scheme, may be allowed to opt for either of the Schemes.

6. With the above position, the matter is placed before the Board of Governors for consideration and decision.” “Minutes iii) Adoption of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme for the Institute Employees Presenting the item, the Director informed the Board that the Service Rules approved by Board of Governors of the institute provide for two schemes; namely Contributory Provident Fund- cum- Gratuity Scheme (CPF Scheme) and General Provident-cum- Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme (GPF Scheme) for the employees of the Institute and employees could opt for either of the two schemes. These Service Rules were vetted by the Department of Training and Technical Education and had the concurrence of the (Finance), Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The then Secretary representative of the Principal Secretary (TE) informed that the directive contained in the Govt. Letters referred to in the agenda note had been implemented in all the autonomous organizations under the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. A member brought to the Notice of the Board that the similar circular had been received in Jawahar Lai Nehru University also and the same had not been implemented as yet and was under examination. The Director pointed out that switching over to the CPF Scheme may not find favour with those existing employees who were already being governed by the GPF Scheme and it may entail legal implications. A similar view was also held by other members present. It was also pointed out that in order to attract good faculty, it was desirable to have GPF Scheme at the Institute as it was a motivation for the prospective candidates to join the Institute. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:16.01.2025 18:46:45 W.P.(C) 6201/2022 Page 6 of 31 After protracted deliberations, it was agreed that the issue being of sensitive nature with repercussion, maybe examined in totality particulars to the light of the procedural and legal implications, besides the commitment made to the existing employees in the event the existing employees being asked to change over to CPF Scheme as envisaged in the Government Letters referred to in the Agenda note. It was desired that a clarification may also be sought from the Government of NCT of Delhi, as to whether the directives contained in the Government Letters under reference were applicable to this Institute also. The matter may be brought before the Board after examination as aforesaid and pending final decision on the matter, the new entrants may be required to opt for the CPF scheme only.” (bold emphasis supplied)

7. Pertinently, the petitioners herein contend that the interpretation of the letter dated 16.03.2000 by the Board of Governors of respondent No.1/NSUT in its 22nd meeting held on 29.06.2001 is misdirected and erroneous inasmuch as the respondent No.1/NSUT failed to appreciate that the advice contained in the letter dated

16.03.2000 was for those organizations which offered only the CPF Scheme to its employees, and not for organizations such as the Respondent No. l/NSUT which had been providing the option of both GPF and CPF Schemes to its employees since its inception in 1987.

Further, it is contended that even if, for the sake of the argument, it is believed that the interpretation of the respondent No.1/NSUT is correct, the decision of the respondent No.1/NSUT of selectively rescinding/withholding the GPF Scheme from those employees who were recruited on or after 01.01.2001 is in itself arbitrary and discriminatory in nature, thereby liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. the case set up by the petitioners Anyhow, notwithstanding the compulsory implementation of the new pension Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:16.01.2025 18:46:45 W.P.(C) 6201/2022 Page 7 of 31 scheme with effect from 01.01.2004, such employees of the respondent No.1/NSUT who have been recruited prior to 01.01.2004 (i.e., the petitioners herein), are entitled to exercise the option to choose between the GPF Scheme and the CPF Scheme for themselves. To crystallise the said proposition, the petitioners herein have relied upon several authorities which have been collated for the sake of convenience, in the following manner: i. Paragraph (4.16) of the Service Rules for Delhi Institute of Technology (respondent No.1 herein) as approved by the erstwhile Delhi Administration on 11.02.1991 and adopted by the respondent No.1/NSUT on 14.01.1994 in the 11th Meeting of its Board of Governors, which inter alia lay down provisions pertaining the General Provident Fund Scheme and Contributory Provident Fund Scheme besides other retirement benefits. Paragraph (4.16) of the Service Rules reads as under: “4.16 The employees of the Institute can opt for either CPF- cum-Gratuity Scheme or for GPF-cum-Pension-cum- Gratuity Scheme as set out in Schedules D & E. While the employees who opt for CPF-cum-Gratuity Scheme, are not entitled to pension and other retirement benefits, those who opt of GPF-cum-Pension- Gratuity Scheme are entitled to the scheme as set out in Schedule D.” ii. Clause (x) of the Terms and Conditions mentioned in the Office Order/Letter of Appointment issued to the petitioner Nos. 1 and 5 by the respondent No.1/NSUT (Annexure P-5), which provides as follows: “(x) RETIREMENT BENEFIT: The Institute has two schemes viz. (i) Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity Scheme; and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:16.01.2025 18:46:45 W.P.(C) 6201/2022 Page 8 of 31 (ii) General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme. However, you will be governed by the CPF-cum-gratuity Scheme of the Institute. In case the GPF-cum-Gratuity- cum-Pension Scheme becomes operational a later date, you may be required to exercise option to elect either of the schemes.” It would be apposite to mention here that it has been brought out by the respondent No.2/GNCTD that the GPF Scheme never became operational at a later stage rather the Finance Department, GNCTD rejected the proposal of the Board of Governors of the respondent No.1/NSUT to make the same operational for the petitioners and its other similarly placed employees. iii. The Resolution proposed to be passed in the Agenda placed before the 46th Meeting of the Board of Governors of the respondent No. 1/NSUT, held on 20.02.2017, in respect of its employees who joined between 01.01.2001 and 31.12.2003 (including the petitioners herein) to be considered for being given the option of the GPF Scheme. The relevant extract of the Minutes of the 46th Meeting held on 20.02.2017 and the Resolution passed therein (Annexure P-9) is as follows: “(9) Option for allocating GPF Scheme for the employees who joined NSIT from 1/1/2001 to 31/12/03 The Board was informed that since the Institute was granted autonomy in 1987, all the instructions/guidelines issued by GNCTD are applicable to employees of NSIT. Later, a letter No. F4(525)/2001-SB/91-92 dt. 22.12.2000 was received from the Jt. Secretary (TTE), communicating that “(i) all acts/statues/rules/regulations having a bearing on service conditions should be approved by the Govt.: & (ii) as regards pensions, letter No.25(i)/E V/2000 dt. 16.3.2000 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:16.01.2025 18:46:45 W.P.(C) 6201/2022 Page 9 of 31 of GOI, MHRD will be followed”. Subsequently, the matter was taken to the BOG in its 22nd meeting held on 29.6.2001. The BOG resolved that the matter may be brought before it after examination and pending final decision in the matter, the new entrants may be required to opt the CPF Scheme only. In accordance with the decision of the BOG, the Institute has allowed only CPF Scheme to all new entrants who joined on or after 1.1.2001. The Board was also informed that already a proposal has been submitted to the Finance Deptt., Govt. of NCT of Delhi for continuation of GPF Scheme to those employees of NSIT who were appointed during the period from 13/06/87 to 31/12/2000. Since, the Institute is 100% guarantee institution and the Govt. of India has implemented a New Pension Scheme to all the government servants compulsorily w.e.f. 1/1/04 onwards, it was proposed to agree to forward the proposal to the Govt. to consider extending the option of GPF Scheme to those employees of NSIT who joined during the period from 1/1/2001 to 31/12/2003 on the same analogy as per the directives of Govt. of India. RESOLUTION: Resolved to forward the proposal to the Government to reconsider extending the option of GPF Scheme to those employees of NSIT who joined during the period from 1.1.2001 to 31.12.2003 on the same analogy as per the directives of the Govt. of India.” (bold emphasis supplied) iv. Office Memorandum dated 17.02.2020 and letter dated

18.05.2020 duly endorsing the said Memorandum, besides Office Memorandum dated 31.03.2021 (Annexures P-9 and P- 10) issued by the respondent no.2/GNCTD and addressed to the respondent No.1/NSUT and other similarly placed institutions, directing that those Government Servants who were declared successful for recruitment in the results declared on or before Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:16.01.2025 18:46:45 W.P.(C) 6201/2022 Page 10 of 31

31.12.2003 against vacancies occurring before 01.01.2004, be given a one-time opportunity to get covered under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and subscribe to the GPF Scheme, in place of the National Pension Scheme, if they so desire, though not later than the time stipulated therein. v. Office Order/Memorandum dated 04.01.2022 (Annexure P-13) issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, reiterating the earlier memorandums dated 17.02.2020 and

31.03.2021. vi. Notification dated 21.10.2021 (Annexure P-11) issued by the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University [„GGSIPU‟], an autonomous institution similarly placed as the respondent No.1/NSUT, vide which notification, the GGSIPU has partially amended its Statutes 31 and 32 so as to allow all its employees appointed prior to 01.01.2004 to opt for the GPF Scheme if they so desire. vii. The decision in the case of Dr. Ravindra Narayan Mishra v. Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Khalsa College1 wherein this Court inter alia held that the petitioners therein, having been deemed to be appointed prior to 01.01.2004, shall be governed by the GPF Scheme and not the New Pension Scheme. viii. The decision in the case of Rajiv Raizada v. Union of India2 wherein this Court has held that only if an employee consciously opts to continue with the CPF Scheme, he/she would not be 1 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3057 2 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3633 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:16.01.2025 18:46:45 W.P.(C) 6201/2022 Page 11 of 31 entitled to the GPF Scheme. Accordingly, it is contended that since none of the petitioners herein voluntarily opted for the CPF Scheme, they should be held deemed to be covered under the GPF Scheme.

9. In view of the aforesaid, it is averred that the apparent failure on the part of the respondent No.1/NSUT to implement the GPF Scheme with respect to its employees recruited prior to 01.01.2004, violates the rights of the petitioners protected under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, as it illegally denies the petitioners the option to receive pension as per the GPF Scheme, especially when other similarly placed autonomous bodies operating under the aegis and directions of the Respondent No. 2/GNCTD, such as the GGSIPU, have offered it to similarly placed employees as the petitioners herein who were recruited prior to 01.01.2004. It is claimed that due to lack of proper action and clarity on the part of the respondents with respect to applicability and implementation of the GPF Scheme, the petitioners are suffering insofar as they are unnecessarily being thrusted with the CPF Scheme which is not favourable due to its relatively lower benefits. 10. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners herein were constrained to send several representations dated 22.05.2020,

26.05.2020, 09.08.2021, 07.02.2022, 15.02.2022 18.02.2022,

22.02.2022 and lastly 01.03.2022, to the respondent No.1/NSUT, praying that they be considered for the GPF Scheme, however to no avail. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners moved this Court by instituting the present writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:16.01.2025 18:46:45 W.P.(C) 6201/2022 Page 12 of 31 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT 11. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner No.4, namely Mrs. Alka Rai, voluntarily retired from the respondent No.1/NSUT with effect from 04.05.2023. Accordingly, she filed CM APPL. 15327/2023 seeking directions to the respondent No.1/NSUT not to disburse her retirement benefits to the extent of the CPF contribution, until this Court disposes of the present writ petition. 12. When the application came up for hearing on 28.04.2023, this Court, upon recording the categorical statement of the petitioner No.4 that she does not wish to receive the CPF contribution during the pendency of the present petition, allowed CM APPL. 15327/2023 in the aforesaid terms. LEGAL SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES 13. Learned counsels for the respondents herein have raised a preliminary objection qua delay and laches, contending that the present petition has been filed after an unexplained and considerable delay of 20 years since the appointment of the Petitioner is between

01.01.2001 to 31.12.2003 and the present petition claiming benefits under the GPF Scheme benefit has come to be filed only on

26.03.2022. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar3 wherein the Supreme court rejected the claim of the employees for exercising the option of choosing a Pension Scheme, on the ground that the claimants had approached the Court after a delay of 22 years. 3 (2010) 2 SCC 59 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:16.01.2025 18:46:45 W.P.(C) 6201/2022 Page 13 of 31

14. Controverting the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that though their claim is based on a violation of their rights at the time of their appointment i.e., 2001 and 2002, the said violation is currently ongoing, and the cause of action is “continuing” in nature inasmuch as the directions of the respondent no.2/GNCTD accruing the right to opt for the GPF Scheme upon the petitioners, have not been given effect to, till date. Further, it is submitted that the representations made by the petitioners between the years 2020 and 2022 have gone completely unanswered. Under the said circumstances, it is urged that there is no question of the claim of the petitioners being barred by delay and laches. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Union of India v. Smt. Anu Thomas4 as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak v. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation5 to substantiate its case that a cause of action in salary or pension is “recurring” in nature and the right of a government servant to claim service benefits cannot be defeated on the ground of delay and laches. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1/ NSUT ON MERITS 15. Pursuant to orders of this Court, the Assistant Registrar, NSUT filed a counter affidavit dated 25.11.2022 on behalf of the respondent No.1/NSUT acknowledging the broad facts of the matter, besides deposing that the appointment letters which have been issued by the 4 2024:KHC:10733-DB 5 (2022) 18 SCC 144 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:16.01.2025 18:46:45 W.P.(C) 6201/2022 Page 14 of 31 respondent No.1/NSUT to the employees recruited after the decision of the Board of Governors taken in its 22nd Meeting held on

29.06.2001, specifically contain a stipulation that only one scheme, i.e. CPF Scheme, shall be available to such employees. In its defence, the respondent No.1/NSUT state that all the petitioners herein acquiesced to and are bound by such terms and conditions of appointment as envisaged in their service contracts, therefore, they are not in a position to now challenge the same by way of the present writ petition. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the decision of this Court in the case titled Prof. Neeraj Khare v. Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi6. 16. Relying upon the letter dated 16.03.2000 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India as also the Resolution passed by the Board of Governors of the respondent No.1/NSUT in its 22nd Meeting held on 29.06.2001, it is stated by the respondent No.1/NSUT that the petitioners‟ entire premise to approach this Court i.e., the alleged approval for the relief as sought herein by the 46th meeting of the Board of Governors held on 20.12.2017, is misconceived and untenable in law. 17. The Respondent No.1/NSUT has placed on record a letter bearing No. F. 4(524)/2000-SB/1767 dated 22.12.2000(Annexure R-1) which is claimed to have been received from the Jt. Secretary (TTE), DTTE, GNCTD, inter alia communicating the respondent No.1/NSUT that: 6 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6784 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:16.01.2025 18:46:45 W.P.(C) 6201/2022 Page 15 of 31 “Under the provisions of aforesaid Rules it is incumbent upon the Institute to seek approval of Government of Delhi in all service matters of its employees. You are, therefore requested to comply with the aforesaid and other provisions in GFR as applicable to grantee institutions and incorporate the Memorandum of following provisions Association/ Rules and Regulations:

1. All acts/ statutes/rules/regulations having a bearing on service conditions should be approved by the Government. 2. As regards pensions, letter No.25(1)/EV/2000 dated 16.03.2000 of Government of India, Ministry of Finance will be followed. 3. In case of any dispute of difference the decision of Government of NCT of Delhi will prevail over any other body (University/Institute).” (bold emphasis supplied) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2/ GNCTD ON MERITS 18. This Court vide order dated 26.07.2022 and on several occasions thereafter, recorded the statement of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No2/GNCTD to the effect that the GNCTD shall not be filing a counter affidavit as it is has been impleaded in the present matter in the capacity of a proforma party. However, the stand of the respondent No.2/GNCTD which comes out from its written synopsis placed on record besides the arguments advanced by the learned standing counsel for the GNCTD at the Bar, is that the present writ petition is liable to dismissed for the following reasons: i. The OM dated 15.03.2004 relied upon by the petitioners does not come to the rescue of the petitioners as it only provides a clarification regarding the date of applicability of the New Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:16.01.2025 18:46:45 W.P.(C) 6201/2022 Page 16 of 31 Pension Scheme and does not impose any obligation on any autonomous organization to extend the benefit of the GPF Scheme to any other employees who are otherwise not eligible for the same. ii. The OM dated 17.02.2020 relied upon by the petitioners clearly indicates that it has no application to the employees already in service including the petitioners herein who were appointed between 01.01.2001 to 31.12.2003 and are covered under CPF Scheme. Thus, the question of giving the petitioners the option to elect the GPF Scheme by virtue of the OM dated 17.02.2020 does not arise. Moreover, it is contended that the said OM cannot be construed as a decision granting change-over of the employees covered under the CPF Scheme to the GPF Scheme. iii. The case of the petitioners seeking the implementation of the GPF Scheme claiming that it has already been approved by the Board of Governors of the respondent No.1/NSUT in its 46th meeting is factually incorrect in view of the fact that the Board merely resolved to forward the proposal to the GNCTD for consideration, which has not been accepted by the Finance Department, GNCTD. iv. The employees of autonomous bodies cannot, as a matter of right, claim the same service benefits at par with government employees, merely because such autonomous bodies may have adopted Government Service Rules or because such institution is funded by the State or Central Government. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:16.01.2025 18:46:45 W.P.(C) 6201/2022 Page 17 of 31 v. Lastly, the decision to apply the CPF Scheme to the new entrants in all the autonomous bodies from 01.01.2001 is based on the directions issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure vide letter dated

16.03.2000 which is a policy decision that cannot be challenged in the Court of Law. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Bhagwan7, T.M. Sam path v. Ministry of Water Resources8 and Punjab State Coop. Milk Producers Federation Ltd. v. Balbir Kumar Walia9, wherein the Apex Court has held that a policy decision cannot be challenged in the Court of law and autonomous bodies cannot be directed to follow the Rules, Regulations and Schemes of the Government. ANALYSIS & DECISION 19. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the rival parties at the Bar. I have also perused the relevant record of the present case as also the case law cited at the Bar. 20. First things first, it would be apposite to bring to the fore the admitted dates of appointment of the respective petitioners which are tabularised hereinunder: Petitioner No. Name Designation Date of Initial Appointment