Abhay Gopal Bhatt And Ors. vs Indian Statistical Institute And ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 2532 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                               Date of Order: April 23, 2018

+             W.P.(C) 3993/2018 & CM 15721/2018
+             W.P.(C) 3997/2018 & CM 15727/2018

       ARUP KUMAR PAL AND ORS.
       ABHAY GOPAL BHATT AND ORS.
                                                            ..... Petitioners
                              Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Mr. H.
                              Harshavardhan and Ms. Mansi Sood, Advocates

                     versus

       INDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE AND ANR.
                                                          .... Respondents
                              Through: Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC for
                              respondent No.2
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                              ORDER

(ORAL)

1. Petitioners seek switch over from Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) to General Provident Fund (GPF) cum Pension Scheme.

2. Since subject matter of both these petitions is identical, therefore, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the prayer made in these petitions has been already considered by second respondent, who vide order of 29th December, 2016, has declined it while relying upon a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) 7310/2010

rendered on 30th April, 2014. It is pointed out by petitioners' counsel that the substratum of decision in W.P. (C) 7310/2010 has been negated by Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Shashi Kiran and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4819, while observing that there is no reason why above switch over of the Pension Scheme was permitted upto 31st December, 2003 to several other autonomous institutions and denied to appellants therein.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that Division Bench's decision in Smt. Shashi Kiran (supra) was brought to notice of second respondent, but it has not been considered in impugned rejection order. If it was so, then petitioners ought to have sought review of impugned rejection order, which has not been done.

5. Be that as it may. In the facts and circumstance of this case, these petitions are disposed of with permission to petitioners to now make a composite Representation, through their counsel, to second respondent in light of Division Bench's decision in Smt. Shashi Kiran (supra) within two weeks from today. If it is so done, then second respondent shall effectively consider petitioners' Representation so received, in light of Division Bench's decision in Smt. Shashi Kiran (supra) and the facts of instant case, while clearly indicating as to when petitioners had sought conversion from CPF to GPF and if petitioners' prayer is not to be acceded to, then reasons for doing so be spelt out in a speaking order so passed. Needful be done within a period of six weeks and the fate of petitioners' Representation be conveyed to petitioners through their counsel within two weeks thereafter.

6. With aforesaid directions, these petitions and the applications are disposed of.

Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for petitioners.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE APRIL 23, 2018 s