Full Text
W.P.(C) 2037/2010
KAMLESH MALHOTRA & 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. 501/2014 (by P- 12, 15 & 18)
JUDGMENT
1. This review petition has been filed by three petitioners, i.e., petitioner no. 12, 15 & 18. Petitioner no. 12 is Mrs Jayanti Seth (nee Kaul); petitioner no.15 is Mrs Harriet Raghunathan; while petitioner no. 18 is Mrs Smita Gupta.
2. It is averred that in so far as petitioner no. 12 and 15 are concerned, they had exercised their option to remain in the Contributory Pension Fund (CPF) Scheme, albeit on 30.12.1987. It is thus the contention of petitioner W.P.(C) 2037/2010 2015:DHC:4637 no. 12 & 15 that they 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.
3. In so far as petitioner no. 18 is concerned, it is stated that she failed to exercise an option either way. In other words, she neither exercised a positive option to remain in CPF, nor did she exercise an option to switchover to the Pension Scheme.
4. 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, in so far as petitioner no. 12 and 15 are concerned. The said forms are dated 30.12.1987.
5. Mr Rupal, who appears for the Delhi University, concedes that an attested copies of the aforementioned original option forms was supplied to the University by the aforementioned college. It is, however, the learned counsel’s submission that the original option forms were not furnished to the University of Delhi. As indicated above, the original option forms were brought to court, which have been shown to Mr Rupal.
6. As regards petitioner no.18, i.e., Mrs Smita Gupta, the aforementioned college has issued a “to whom it may concern”, and also filed an affidavit. The affidavit of Jesus and Mary Collge, in fact, deals with all three review petitioners. On oath, the concerned officer, Mr Swaraj Sarkar, has stated as follows: “.... 2. That Ms Jayanti Seth and Mrs Harriet Raghunathan had exercised their option to remain in the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPF) on 30.12.1987 i.e., after 30.09.1987 (cut-off date).
3. That Ms. Smita Gupta never exercised her option to remain in the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPF) at any time....”
7. Having regard to the above, the review petitioners in this case will also be entitled to the relief claimed. In so far as petitioner no. 12 and 15 are concerned, they would fall in category –I and, therefore, would have the benefit of the relief which was accorded vide judgement of this court passed in N.C. Bakshi vs Union of India & Ors. However, in these cases 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. 7.[1] In so far as petitioner no. 18 is concerned, she would fall in category – III and, would thus, be entitled to the relief in terms of the judgement dated 30.04.2014, passed in WP(C) No. 1490/2006 – 1507/2006, titled: R.N. Virmani vs University of Delhi & Anr. It is ordered accordingly.
8. The review petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
9. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J MAY 22, 2015 kk