Full Text
W.P.(C) 2036/2010
KANTA BATRA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr K.K. Rai, Sr. Adv. with Mr S.K.
Pandey, Adv.
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.
Review Petition No. 500/2014
JUDGMENT
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. W.P.(C) 2036/2010 2015:DHC:4639 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