Dr. S.N. Singh vs University Of Delhi
2016 Latest Caselaw 5929 Del

$~SB-1
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

     +      REVIEW PET. 454/2014 & CM No. 16832/2014 in
                     LPA No. 479/2014
%                               Date of Decision : 9th September, 2016

         DR. S.N. SINGH                                ..... Appellant

                                Through:   Mr. Praveen Kr. Singh,
                                           Mr. Rajeev Gupta and
                                           Mr. Navlendu Kumar, Advs.
                                           with appellant in person.
                                versus

         UNIVERSITY OF DELHI                          ..... Respondent
                       Through:            Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal
                                           and Ms. Simran Jeet, Advs.
         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG
                      JUDGMENT (ORAL)

GITA MITTAL, J.

CM No.16832/2014 Heard.

For reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the review is hereby condoned.

The application is allowed.

REVIEW PET. 454/2014 Heard.

1. The petitioner retired as a law teacher from the University of

Delhi on 31st July, 2010 and was paid his retirement benefits later.

2. It appears that by an office memorandum no. 4/118J:PIC dated 1st May, 1987, option was given to the employees to convert from the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to the General Provident Fund cum Pension Scheme (the pension scheme) as well as amendments by the University to its statute 28-A as well as two notifications dated 25th May, 1987 and 4th June, 1987, the University had notified that the petitioner had been converted to the pension scheme as envisaged in the office memorandum for the reason that he had not exercised the option before 30 th September, 1987 to continue under the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme.

3. It appears that the office memorandum no. 4/118J:PIC dated 1st May, 1987 as well as amendments were never served upon the petitioner who learnt about the same only in September/October, 2013. The petitioner sought information with regard to the same from the University of Delhi in exercise of his rights under the Right to Information Act, 2005 but was unsuccessful in getting the complete information or the documents. In this background, the appellant represented to the respondents seeking sanction of pension from the date of retirement as he had been automatically switched over to the pension scheme by virtue of the deeming provisions in the office memorandum dated 1st May, 1987 and to pay arrears from the date of his retirement from the service of the respondent i.e. with effect from 1st August, 2010. Representations to the University as well as to the visitor dated 13 th June, 2014 and

18th June, 2014 were of no avail compelling to the petitioner (Shri S.N. Gupta) to seek relief by way of W.P.(C) No. 4132/2014 which was dismissed by the judgment dated 8th July, 2014.

4. Some other employees also challenged the denial of the pension scheme in a batch of writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 1490-1507/2006. By the judgment dated 30th April, 2014, certain staff members including one Chetanya Mohan Gupta, (who had filed W.P.(C) No. 5981/2010) were denied relief.

These persons challenged the denial of relief in a bunch of Letters Patent Appeal being LPA Nos. 410-418/2014, 554-555, 558, 594, 606-673/2014.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed a copy of the judgment dated 24th August, 2016 passed by a Division Bench of this court in a bunch of Letter Patent Appeals by members of the teaching staff working in the colleges of the Delhi University and by the University of Delhi. These Letter Patent Appeals challenged a judgment dated 30th April, 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions being W.P.(C) Nos. 1490- 1507/2006. Mr. Chetanya Mohan Gupta was denied relief by the learned Single Judge for the reason that he had received his dues as per the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme on retirement without any demur or reservation.

6. Mr. Chetanya Mohan Gupta had challenged the denial of the relief by way of LPA No. 594/2014. Others denied the relief as well as the University of Delhi had also challenged the judgment by Letter Patents Appeals.

Now, by the judgment dated 24th August, 2016, the Division Bench has decided all the appeals. The court has allowed the appeal filed by Chetanya Mohan Gupta and others like him directing that he was entitled to switch over to the pension scheme. The appeals of the University of Delhi stand rejected.

7. So far as the petitioner before us is concerned, he is also a retired teaching staff of the University of Delhi who had availed the benefit under the CPF Scheme without any protest. This was one of the two reasons for denying him the relief in the writ petition.

8. The second reason for denying relief to the appellant by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 8th July, 2014 was unexplained delay and laches. The relief was denied to the petitioner by the learned Single Judge premised on the judgment dated 30th April, 2014 passed in W.P.(C) No.2036/2010 entitled Kanta Batra & Anr v. Union of India & Ors.

9. Our attention has also been drawn to the fact that Kanta Batra had assailed the judgment dated 30th April, 2014 by way of LPA No. 416/2014 which has been allowed by the judgment dated 24th August, 2016 of the Division Bench of this court.

In these circumstances, both the reasons which weighed with the learned Single Judge while passing the order dated 8 th July, 2014 have been held to be contrary to law. These very reasons had persuaded this court to dismiss the petitioner's appeal by the order dated 21st July, 2014, review whereof is being sought.

10. In view of the above, it cannot be denied that the petitioner is identically placed as Sh. Chetanya Mohan Gupta and others who have been granted relief by the judgment dated 24 th August, 2016 and the petitioner would be entitled to be treated similarly.

It is submitted by Mr. Rupal, ld. counsel for the respondent that Chetanya Mohan Gupta and Shashi Kiran were not identically placed. However, a reading of the judgment dated 24 th August, 2016 does not suggest so.

In view thereof, the order dated 21st July, 2014 is hereby recalled.

11. This review petition is allowed in terms of the judgment dated 24th August, 2016.

The order dated 8th July, 2014 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4132/2014 is hereby set aside and quashed.

12. It is held and directed that the petitioner will be entitled to the same relief as has been granted to Shri Chaitanya Mohan Gupta by the judgment dated 24th August, 2016 in LPA No.594/2014.

This review petition is allowed in the above terms.

GITA MITTAL, J

S. P. GARG, J

SEPTEMBER 09, 2016/kr