[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Export Inspection Council vs Deepak Shekhar & Anr on 7 April, 2026
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 19.01.2026
% Judgment delivered on: 07.04.2026
+ LPA 391/2021 & CM APPL. 37850/2021
EXPORT INSPECTION COUNCIL .....Appellant
Through: Mr. L.R. Khatana, Advocate.
versus
DEEPAK SHEKHAR & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Kripa Shankar Prasad and Mohd.
Ainul Ansari, Mr. M. K. Goyal,
Mr.Harsh Jain, Advs. for R-1 and 3.
Mr. Sushil Kr. Pandey, S.P.C. for R-
2/UOI.
+ LPA 392/2021 & CM APPL. 37893/2021
EXPORT INSPECTION COUNCIL .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. L. R. Khatana, Mr. Ankit Tiwari,
Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advs.
versus
RAJIV RAIZADA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Kripa Shankar Prasad and Mohd.
Ainul Ansari, Mr. M. K. Goyal,
Mr.Harsh Jain, Advs.
+ LPA 396/2021 & CM APPL. 37893/2021
EXPORT INSPECTION COUNCIL .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. L. R. Khatana, Mr. Ankit Tiwari,
Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advs.
LPA 391/2021 & other connected matters Page 1 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digiltally Signed
By:SREERAM L
Signing Date:07.04.2026
15:44:33
versus
ANAND KISHORE & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Kripa Shankar Prasad, Mohd. A.
Ansari, Mr. Manoj Kr. Goyal,
Mr.Harsh Jain, Advs. for R-1.
Mr. Sushil Kr. Pandey, S.P.C. for R-
2/UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J.
1. These three intra-Court appeals challenge the judgment and order
dated 05.07.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge whereby W.P.(C)
6747/2014, W.P.(C) 8601/2010 & W.P.(C) 3426/2012 have been allowed
and it has been held that the employees of the Export Inspection Council -
appellant, who had instituted the proceedings of the writ petitions would be
deemed to have switched over to the pension scheme and as such are entitled
to the benefits thereunder on the date of their retirement. The learned Single
Judge has also directed that the employees shall refund the employer's
contribution to Contributory Provident Fund (hereinafter referred to as
'CPF') received by them with interest @ 8% per annum and the appellant
shall compute the pension and arrears, if any, after making adjustment which
shall be paid to the employees thereafter, but without any interest.
2. Since, all the three appeals challenge the same judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge and raise similar questions of law, they
have been heard together and are being decided by the common judgment
which follows:
3. The issue in these appeals centers around a circular dated 02.07.1987
issued by the Export Inspection Council (hereinafter referred to as the
'Council') which has been established under Section 3 of Export (Quality
Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The
said circular dated 02.07.1987 refers to a decision of Government of India
while accepting the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay
Commission on Pension, whereby it was decided that employees of the
Central Government who were still governed by the CPF scheme shall be
given option to continue to remain in the said scheme vide circular dated
01.05.1987. The circular further mentions that the Council, with the
approval of the Ministry, has decided to extend the said benefit on the same
terms and conditions as is stipulated by the Government of India to the
employees who are governed by the CPF Scheme of the Export Inspection
Council/ Agencies.
4. The said circular dated 02.07.1987 embodies salient features of the
scheme and provides that all those who are governed by the CPF Scheme,
who were in service as on 01.01.1986 and who were still in service on the
date of issue of the circular i.e. 02.07.1987, would be deemed to have come
over to Export Inspection Council, Pension and General Provident Rules,
1981 as notified by the Ministry on 24.10.1981. It also mentions that such
employees would have an option to continue to remain under the CPF
Scheme if they so desired. It further provides that the option would have to
be exercised and conveyed to the concerned head of the office by
31.10.1987 in the format which formed part of the circular. The said
circular also stipulates that if the employees wish to continue under CPF
Scheme and if no option is received by the head of the office by 31.10.1987,
the employees would be deemed to have come over to the pension scheme.
Clauses 2(a) and 2(b) of the circular dated 02.07.1987 are quoted hereunder:
"2. With the approval of the Ministry it has been decided to extend, with
immediate effect, the said benefit on same terms and conditions as
stipulated by the Govt. to the employees who are governed by the CPF
Scheme of the Export Inspection Council/ Agencies. The salient features of
the scheme are as under:-
(a) All those who are governed by the CPF scheme who were in service as
on 1.1.1986 and who are still in service on the date of issue of this
circular shall be deemed to have come over to Export Inspection Council
Pension and General Provident Fund Rules 1981 as notified by the
Ministry vide S.O. No.2922 dated 24.10.1981.
(b) The employees of the category mentioned above will, however, have an
option to continue to remain under the CPF Scheme, if they so desire. The
option will have to be exercised and conveyed to the concerned head of
office latest by 31 Oct. 1987 in the form enclosed to the circular, if the
employees wish to continue under the CPF Scheme If no option is received
by the head of office by 31.10.1987 the employees will be deemed to have
come over to the Pension Scheme.
(c) ........................
x x x"
5. The question for consideration which had arisen before the learned
Single Judge and that needs to be considered in these appeals as well, is that
in case the employees of the Council, in terms of the circular dated
02.07.1987 did not exercise and convey their option to continue to be
governed by the CPF Scheme of the Council, will they be deemed to have
come over to the Pension Scheme?
6. Such stipulations are made in Clauses 2(a) and 2(b) of the circular
dated 02.07.1987, a perusal of which makes it unambiguously clear that
those employees who were governed by the CPF Scheme and were in
service as on 01.01.1986 and also were still in service on the date of issue of
the circular i.e. 02.07.1987, shall be deemed to have come over to the Export
Inspection Council, Pension and General Provident Rules, 1981.
7. Clause 2(b) of the said circular further stipulates that employees
willing to remain to be governed by the CPF Scheme were to give their
option for their continued coverage under the CPF Scheme and, in case, the
employee concerned did not give his option to be covered under the CPF
Scheme by 31.10.1987, such employee will be deemed to have come over to
the Pension Scheme. Accordingly, in view of the clear and explicit
stipulation in Clauses 2(a) and 2(b) of the circular dated 02.07.1987, the
coverage of the Pension and GPF Scheme was automatic which was
dependent only on the employee giving an option to continue to be covered
under the CPF Scheme. In other words, in a situation where the employee
concerned did not exercise and convey his option by 31.10.19687 to be
continued to be covered under the CPF Scheme, he was not required to give
any option for being covered under the Export Inspection Council, Pension
and General Provident Rules. The deeming clause contained in clauses 2(a)
and 2(b) of the circular dated 02.07.1987 is unequivocal and does not leave
any ambiguity.
8. The respondents in these appeals (employees) were in service on
01.01.1986 and were also in service of the Council on the date of issuance of
the said circular i.e. 02.07.1987. However, since the appellant - Council
was not treating them to be covered under the Pension and General
Provident Fund Scheme, they represented their cause to the authorities of the
Council.
9. The representation made by the respondent in LPA 392/2021, namely
Rajiv Raizada was rejected by the Council vide order dated 07.11.2013. If
we peruse the order rejecting the claim of Rajiv Raizada, what we find is
that the reason given by the Council for not allowing him to be covered
under the GPF and Pension Scheme is that he had given his option on
24.12.1983 and again on 24.03.1986 in favour of being covered by CPF
Scheme and thereafter he continued to be covered under the CPF Scheme till
the date of decision i.e. 07.11.2013.
10. In our considered opinion, such a reason given by the Council for not
allowing Shri Rajiv Raizada to be covered under the Pension and GPF
Scheme is untenable for the reason that on issuance of the circular dated
02.07.1987, he would be deemed to have come over to the Pension and GPF
Pension Scheme as, admittedly, by the cut of date i.e. 31.10.1987, he did not
exercise and convey his option to continue to be covered under the CPF
Scheme. As a matter of fact, the circular dated 02.07.1987 gave option to all
the employees who were in service of the Council as on 01.01.1986 and
were also continuing on the date of issue of the circular i.e. 02.07.1987.
Thus, since Shri Rajiv Raizada had not exercised his option by 31.10.1987
to be governed under the CPF Scheme, he would be deemed to have come
over to the Pension and GPF Scheme of the Council.
11. Any option, given prior to the issuance of the circular dated
02.07.1987, would lose its significance and meaning for the reason that the
circular dated 02.07.1987 covered all those employees who were in service
on 01.01.1986 and were still in service on the date of issuance of the circular
dated 02.07.1987. The option to remain covered under the CPF Scheme was
to be exercised and conveyed by all such employees by 31.10.1987 and in
case such employees, who were in service as on 01.01.1986 and were also in
service of the Council on 02.07.1987, did not opt to be governed by CPF
Scheme, they will be deemed to have come over to the Pension and GPF
Scheme of the Council.
12. The circular dated 02.07.1987, in fact, does not differentiate between
employees who had earlier given option to be covered by the CPF Scheme
and those who had not given such option, prior to 02.07.1987. The
conditions for application of the circular dated 02.07.1987 were (1) the
employee was covered by CPF Scheme prior to 02.07.1987, (2) he was in
service on 01.01.1986 and (3) he was still in service on the date of issuance
of the circular i.e. 02.07.1987.
13. There is no dispute that Shri Rajiv Raizada and other employees who
had instituted the underlying writ petitions were governed by CPF Scheme
prior to issuance of the circular dated 02.07.1987 and were in service as on
01.01.1986 and were also in service of the Council on the date of issue of
the circular dated 02.07.1987. Thus, merely because prior to 02.07.1987, an
employee had given an option to be governed under the CPF Scheme, he
will not be debarred from claiming that he shall be covered under the GPF
and Pension Scheme if he had not given his option conveying that he shall
continue to be governed under the CPF Scheme, by 31.10.1987. In the
aforesaid view of the matter, a bare perusal of the provisions of the circular
dated 02.07.1987 and the facts of the instant case, clearly establish that all
the employees who had instituted the underlying writ petitions were
governed by the circular dated 02.07.1987 and none of them had exercised
and conveyed their option to be governed under the CPF Scheme by
31.10.1987 and, therefore, any other view taken in respect of the claim of
these employees, in our considered opinion, runs in complete derogation of
the circular dated 02.07.1987.
14. So far as the respondent in LPA 391/2021 (the petitioner in W.P.(C.)
No. 3426/2012) - Deepak Shekhar is concerned, the representation made by
him claiming that he shall be covered under the GPF and Pension Scheme
was rejected by the authorities of the Council vide order dated 30.03.2012,
however, the said order does not disclose any reason for denying him the
said benefit; rather it only conveys that decision has been taken to deny the
said benefit. The facts in relation to Deepak Shekhar are also not in dispute.
He was covered by the circular dated 02.07.1987 and had not given his
option to be continued under the CPF Scheme by 31.10.1987 and, therefore,
for all these reasons, he shall also be deemed to have come over to the GPF
and Pension Scheme of the Council.
15. Similarly, the respondent in LPA 396/2021 (petitioner in W.P.(C.)
No. 8601/2010) - Anand Kishore, is also entitled to the benefit of being
included in and covered by the GPF and Pension Scheme of the Council.
His representation claiming such benefit was rejected by the authorities of
the Council vide order dated 24.06.2010 wherein it has been stated that in
terms of the circular dated 02.07.1987, the option to move over to GPF was
to be exercised by those employees of the Council who had joined service
prior to 24.10.1981 and since Shri Kishore never exercised such option, he
will be continued to remain under the purview of the CPF Scheme. Such a
reason, in our opinion, is absolutely misconceived as it is based on complete
misreading of the circular dated 02.07.1987 inasmuch as, the said circular
never required the employees to exercise and convey option for moving to
GPF and Pension Scheme. All that was required under the said circular
dated 02.07.1987 was that those employees who still wanted to continue to
be governed under the CPF Scheme, were to give their options and convey
the same to the authorities. The circular dated 02.07.1987 does not stipulate
any requirement of exercising and conveying option for moving over to GPF
and Pension Scheme from CPF Scheme. The option required was only to be
given in case the employee concerned intended to continue to be governed
by the CPF Scheme. Thus, the reason given in the rejection letter dated
24.07.2010 in respect of Shri Anand Kishore is absolutely untenable.
16. We may also note, at this juncture, that the appellant - Council had
issued a circular dated 08.02.1989 with the approval of the Ministry of
Commerce, and conveyed therein that officers and employees of the
Council, if they so desire may opt for the pension scheme and such option
should reach the Head of the Export Agency by 31.03.1989. It further
stipulated that no further opportunity will be extended to the employees in
future for this purpose and, consequently, they shall be governed by the CPF
Scheme.
17. So far as the aforesaid circular is concerned, the same cannot be read
in isolation for the simple reason that the said circular dated 08.02.1989 does
not supersede the earlier circular dated 02.07.1987. In terms of the circular
dated 02.07.1987, if an employee concerned who was covered by the said
circular and did not exercise and convey his option by 31.10.1987 to be
covered under the CPF Scheme, in our opinion, shall be deemed to have
switched over to the GPF and Pension Scheme of the Council. The circular
dated 08.02.1989, as already noted above, nowhere states that it was issued
in supersession of the circular dated 02.07.1987. This circular, in our
opinion, would apply to those who had opted for CPF Scheme pursuant to
the circular dated 02.07.1987 and, thereafter, intended to switch over to the
GPF and Pension Scheme. No defence, thus, is available to the appellant to
deny the employees of the Council of the benefit of the circular dated
02.07.1987 on the basis of the subsequent circular dated 08.02.1989.
18. The learned Single Judge has discussed the respective cases of the
parties and has also considered the provisions of the circular dated
02.07.1987 and has held that the circular dated 02.07.1987 had deeming
effect that in the eventuality an express option is not exercised by an
employee for his continuance in the CPF Scheme, then he is deemed to have
switched over to the Pension Scheme. The learned Single Judge has also
returned a finding that nothing was placed on record to show that the
employees who had filed the underlying writ petitions had ever opted to
continue in CPF Scheme pursuant to the circular dated 02.07.1987. The
learned Single Judge has also discussed the subsequent circular dated
08.02.1989 and has rightly come to the conclusion that the said circular was
issued to enable those employees who under the circular dated 02.07.1989
had expressly given their option to continue under the CPF Scheme and
thereafter intended to be governed by the GPF and Pension scheme.
19. The learned Single Judge has discussed the judgment of this Court in
Dr. R.N. Virmani and Ors. University of Delhi and Anr. and other
connected matters, W.P.(C) 1490/2006, decided on 30.04.2014 and also the
judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Amita Ajit Desai &Ors.
v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. No. 1331/2017, decided on 17.01.2019. The
learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment has also noticed
that against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Amita Ajit Desai
(supra), the SLP preferred before the Apex Court was also rejected.
20. In Dr. R.N. Virmani (supra), it has categorically been held that a
perusal of the circular dated 01.05.1987, which was issued in respect of the
employees of the Central Government, as also the format appended thereto,
which was to be filled in for the purpose of exercising option under the said
circular, would show that the only option which had to be exercised was in
respect of continuation by an employee under the CPF Scheme and further
that the employee was not required to submit any form if he wanted to be
covered under the Provident Fund and Pension Scheme.
21. We may also note that the circular dated 02.07.1987 was issued on the
lines of the Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 issued by the Central
Government for the benefit of its employees. In Dr. R.N. Virmani (supra),
University of Delhi, vide notification dated 25.05.1987 had adopted the
Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India, dated 01.05.1987.
The learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that the said Office
Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 clearly applies to all employees who were
beneficiaries of the CPF Scheme on 01.01.1986 and that all such employees
who were CPF beneficiaries would be deemed to have come over to Pension
Scheme unless the employee concerned submitted his or her option to
continue with the CPF Scheme.
22. We are in complete agreement with the impugned judgment where the
learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in
Dr. R.N. Virmani (supra).
23. Much emphasis was laid on behalf of the appellant on the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in KVS & Ors v. Jaspal Kaur & Ors., (2007) 6
SCC 13. However, the facts of the said case are distinguishable and distinct
from the facts of the instant case inasmuch as, in Jaspal Kaur (supra), the
employee concerned had given a letter dated 15.03.1997 where the
employee is said to have categorically stated that she was contributing
towards CPF. She also had disclosed her CPF account number. Though, this
fact was disputed by the employee concerned, however, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court came to the conclusion that even though the employer
(Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan) was not able to produce the original option
form which was indicative of the fact that the employee was desirous of
continuing under the CPF Scheme, however, the attendant circumstances
showed that she had chosen to remain under the CPF Scheme whereas in the
instant case, none of the employees had ever given their option pursuant to
the circular dated 02.07.1987 to continue to be covered under the CPF
Scheme. Thus, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant in
Jaspal Kaur (supra) does not improve the case of the appellant.
24. For the discussion made and reasons given above, we find ourselves
in complete agreement with the judgment and order dated 05.07.2021,
passed by the learned Single Judge which is under challenge herein.
25. Resultantly, the appeals are hereby dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
(DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(TEJAS KARIA)
JUDGE
APRIL 07, 2026
N.Khanna
