NIRD Professor Cannot Claim GPF Scheme After Accepting CPF Terms at Regularisation
A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed a retired NIRD professor's plea to switch pension schemes, applying an earlier binding precedent on identical facts.
The Supreme Court on 20 August 2026 dismissed a special leave petition filed by K. Suman Chandra, a retired professor of the National Institute of Rural Development, who sought a declaration that he was entitled to the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension Scheme rather than the Central Provident Fund Scheme. The Court held that the petitioner's regularisation order dated 04.05.2012 expressly continued him under the CPF Scheme, that he had never challenged those terms, and that he had already accepted retiral benefits under the CPF Scheme before approaching the tribunal. The bench applied its own earlier decision in National Institute of Rural Development v. Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma (Civil Appeal No.542 of 2023, decided on 28.02.2023), which arose from materially identical facts involving a colleague regularised by the same office order on the same date.
How the Dispute Reached the Supreme Court
K. Suman Chandra was first appointed as a Research Associate with NIRD on a contractual basis on 12.11.1984. From the outset, he was placed under the CPF Scheme by an office order dated 13.11.1984. His services were regularised with effect from 07.11.1985. He thereafter moved through several posts — Assistant Director on 09.03.1992, Deputy Director on 10.08.1999, and Professor on 01.05.2007, the latter two on a contractual basis.
The pivotal event was Office Order No.98 dated 04.05.2012, by which NIRD regularised the services of academic staff working on a contractual basis, including the petitioner and his colleague Mr. Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma. The regularisation order expressly stipulated that it would take effect from the date of its issuance and that services would continue to be governed by the existing CPF Scheme. The petitioner retired on 31.01.2017 and received all retiral benefits, including NIRD's contribution to the CPF, on 14.02.2017.
Only after retirement did the petitioner approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in Original Application No.45 of 2017. He contended that NIRD's act of retaining him under the CPF Scheme was illegal and contrary to the NIRD Rules of 2011 and NIRD Service Bye-laws, Chapter IX, Para 52, Section 4. The CAT allowed the O.A. on 15.07.2019, treating the petitioner's case as covered by its earlier ruling in favour of Mr. S.S.P. Sharma.
NIRD and the Union of India challenged the CAT's order before the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. By the time the writ petition was heard, this Court had already decided the S.S.P. Sharma case against the employee. The High Court, on 08.08.2023, upheld the challenge, set aside the CAT order, and dismissed the O.A. The petitioner then moved the Supreme Court.
The Binding Precedent: S.S.P. Sharma and the Effect of Regularisation
The decisive precedent was National Institute of Rural Development v. Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma and Others, decided by this Court on 28.02.2023. Mr. S.S.P. Sharma, who had been regularised on the post of Professor by the very same Office Order No.98 dated 04.05.2012, had sought identical GPF benefits and initially succeeded before the CAT and the High Court. This Court reversed those decisions.
In S.S.P. Sharma, the Court analysed Bye-law 52 and its clauses (a), along with Bye-laws 48 and 49, and Rule 6 of the NIRD Rules of 2011. It held that the regularisation dated 04.05.2012 operated from the date of the order itself and did not relate back to the date of initial appointment. The critical reason was that the regularisation order specifically stated it would take effect from the date of issuance, and Mr. S.S.P. Sharma had never challenged that condition.
K. Suman Chandra's petition before the Supreme Court attempted to distinguish this ruling. Counsel Mr. Manish Kumar Saran argued on the petitioner's behalf, while Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Senior Advocate, appeared for the first respondent and Ms. Vishakha appeared for the second respondent, both submitting that the petitioner was similarly situated and that S.S.P. Sharma applied squarely.
Why the Court Declined to Depart from S.S.P. Sharma
The Court found the facts indistinguishable. Both the petitioner and Mr. S.S.P. Sharma were regularised on the post of Professor by the same Office Order No.98 dated 04.05.2012, on identical conditions. The order expressly retained them under the CPF Scheme and took effect from the date of its issuance. Neither employee had challenged those terms.
The Court observed that the petitioner had accepted those terms and conditions for regularisation, received retiral benefits under the CPF Scheme, and raised his grievance only after retirement. The High Court had separately noted this sequence of events when it allowed NIRD's writ petition.
The bench stated it was “in complete agreement with what has been held by this Court in S.S.P. Sharma” and found no reason “whatsoever, to re-open the aforesaid issue at the instance of the petitioner.” Exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution was declined because the petitioner was, in the Court's assessment, in an identical position to Mr. S.S.P. Sharma in every material respect.
Order
The Special Leave Petition was dismissed. The order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana dated 08.08.2023, which had set aside the CAT's order and dismissed the Original Application, was left undisturbed.