Delhi High Court
Kamlesh Malhotra & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 22 May, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2037/2010
KAMLESH MALHOTRA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr K.K. Rai, Sr. Adv. with Mr S.K.
Pandey, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Sanjeev Narula, CGSC with Mr Ajay
Kalra, Adv. for Resp./ UOI.
Mr Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv. for Resp./
University of Delhi.
Ms Somya Yadava & Mr Deepak Bhardwaj, Advs.
for R-3.
Mr Tom K. Jose, Sr. Assistant, Accounts
Department of R-6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 22.05.2015
Review Petition No. 501/2014 (by P- 12, 15 & 18)
1. This review petition has been filed by three petitioners, i.e., petitioner
no. 12, 15 & 18. Petitioner no. 12 is Mrs Jayanti Seth (nee Kaul); petitioner
no.15 is Mrs Harriet Raghunathan; while petitioner no. 18 is Mrs Smita
Gupta.
2. It is averred that in so far as petitioner no. 12 and 15 are concerned,
they had exercised their option to remain in the Contributory Pension Fund
(CPF) Scheme, albeit on 30.12.1987. It is thus the contention of petitioner
no. 12 & 15 that they would fall in category -I and, therefore, would be
covered by the judgement delivered by this court on 30.04.2014, passed in
WP(C) No. 5631/2010, titled: N.C. Bakshi vs Union of India & Ors.
3. In so far as petitioner no. 18 is concerned, it is stated that she failed to
exercise an option either way. In other words, she neither exercised a
positive option to remain in CPF, nor did she exercise an option to switch-
over to the Pension Scheme.
4. I had called for the original option form from the concerned college.
Mr Tom K. Jose, Sr. Assistant, Accounts Department, in the Jesus and Mary
College, is present in court. He has brought to court the original option
form, in so far as petitioner no. 12 and 15 are concerned. The said forms are
dated 30.12.1987.
5. Mr Rupal, who appears for the Delhi University, concedes that an
attested copies of the aforementioned original option forms was supplied to
the University by the aforementioned college. It is, however, the learned
counsel's submission that the original option forms were not furnished to the
University of Delhi. As indicated above, the original option forms were
brought to court, which have been shown to Mr Rupal.
6. As regards petitioner no.18, i.e., Mrs Smita Gupta, the
aforementioned college has issued a "to whom it may concern", and also
filed an affidavit. The affidavit of Jesus and Mary Collge, in fact, deals with
all three review petitioners. On oath, the concerned officer, Mr Swaraj
Sarkar, has stated as follows:
".... 2. That Ms Jayanti Seth and Mrs Harriet Raghunathan
had exercised their option to remain in the Contributory
Provident Fund Scheme (CPF) on 30.12.1987 i.e., after
30.09.1987 (cut-off date).
3. That Ms. Smita Gupta never exercised her option to
remain in the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPF) at
any time...."
7. Having regard to the above, the review petitioners in this case will
also be entitled to the relief claimed. In so far as petitioner no. 12 and 15 are
concerned, they would fall in category -I and, therefore, would have the
benefit of the relief which was accorded vide judgement of this court passed
in N.C. Bakshi vs Union of India & Ors. However, in these cases as well
conversion to Pension Scheme would be subject to the employer-respondent
being entitled to recoup its contribution under the CPF Scheme if not
already recouped with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum. It is
ordered accordingly.
7.1 In so far as petitioner no. 18 is concerned, she would fall in category -
III and, would thus, be entitled to the relief in terms of the judgement dated
30.04.2014, passed in WP(C) No. 1490/2006 - 1507/2006, titled: R.N.
Virmani vs University of Delhi & Anr. It is ordered accordingly.
8. The review petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
9. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MAY 22, 2015
kk
