Delhi High Court
Kanta Batra & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 22 May, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2036/2010
KANTA BATRA & 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. 500/2014
1. This is a review petition filed by petitioner no.3, i.e., Mrs Swadesh
Chadha. It is averred that the said petitioner no.3, retired from service on
31.01.2013, and while, in service she had exercised her right to continue in
the Contributory Pension Fund (CPF) Scheme, albeit on 19.12.1987. It is
thus the contention of petitioner no.3 that she 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.
1.1 It is submitted that, this fact that the petitioner had filed an option
form, after the cut-off date, i.e., 30.09.1987, was inadvertently not
articulated in the writ petition. It is stated, since the writ petition included
other petitioner, due to over-sight this fact was not mentioned.
2. 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. The said form is dated 19.12.1987.
2.1 Furthermore, the record, which is brought before me, is indicative of
the fact that Mrs. Swadesh Chadha, had in fact received the amount under
the CPF Scheme, albeit under protest, without prejudice to her rights and
contentions raised in the writ petition. The said protest letter is dated
08.08.2013.
3. Mr Rupal, who appears for the Delhi University, concedes that an
attested copy of the aforementioned original option form was supplied to the
University by the aforementioned college. It is, however, the learned
counsel's submission that the original option form was not furnished to the
University of Delhi. As indicated above, the original option form was
brought to court, which has been shown to Mr Rupal.
4. Having regard to the same, I am of the view that the review petitioner
falls in category -I and, therefore, would have the benefit of the relief which
was accorded vide judgement of this court in N.C. Bakshi vs Union of India
& Ors. However, in this case 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.
5. The review petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
6. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MAY 22, 2015
kk
