President of India
Visitor, University of Delhi
Dear Sir,
We write to seek your urgent intervention against the decision of the Executive Council of Delhi University on 14.7.2014 which threatens stoppage/withholding of pension/retirement benefits to thousands of employees, both in service and retired.
The item on the agenda of the Executive Council meeting on 14.7.2014 was to consider the recommendations of the Task Force constituted by the Vice-Chancellor vide the Executive Council resolution 3 dated 27.5.2014 (Annexure 1). The Task Force was given the mandate:
“to examine all aspects of the judgements arising out of the CPF/GPF matter decided by the High Court on 30.4.2014 and to suggest right pathways for ensuring the implementation of decisions stemming from the judgements keeping the welfare of the employees serving as well as retired.”
It is unfortunate that the Task Force disregarded both the mandates. Its recommendations go against the High Court judgments of 30.4.2014 (see Annexures 2-I to 2-III below) and constitute an attack on the livelihood of the concerned employees, serving as well as retired. The Executive Council approved these improper and objectionable recommendations with five members dissenting and decided as under:
- to issue notice of stoppage of payments of pension after three months to all employees who had opted for CPF on or before the deadline of 30.9.1987 and had subsequently opted for GPF during the extensions granted by the University. The Task Force claimed that the High Court had declared payments to such employees as “unapproved” expenditure.
- to file an appeal in the High Court “on the lines indicated by the MHRD” with regard to employees who continued to subscribe to CPF after 30.9.1987 .
The first decision claims to be based on the High Court judgment of 30.4.2014 in regard to the concerned employees, classified by the Court as Category II. The second decision, in regard to employees classified by the Court as Categories I and III, claims to be based on a letter dated 11.7.2014 from the MHRD enclosing an Office Memorandum of the Department of Pensions & Pensioners’ Welfare dated 23.6.2014 and a note from the Department of Expenditure dated 12.10.2012.
Both decisions are in fact based on selective misreadings of the High Court judgments as well as the letter from the MHRD of 11.7.2014 as may be seen from the details outlined below.
HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS OF 30.4.2014
On 30.4.2014, the Hon’ble High Court delivered three judgments on the various petitions which it had grouped into three categories:
Category I: Employees who opted to continue in CPF after the deadline of 30.9.1987, i.e. during the extensions granted by the University of Delhi. (Annexure 2-I)
Category II: Employees who opted to continue in CPF on or before 30.9.1987. (Annexure 2-II)
Category III: Employees who did not exercise any option, either before 30.9.1987 or thereafter. (Annexure 2-III)
The Hon’ble High Court based its judgments on the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission to put everyone in the Pension Scheme and the Office Memorandum of the Department of Pensions & Pensioners’ Welfare of 1.5.1987 (Annexure 3), which communicated the approval of this recommendation by the GOI along with a one-time option to continue in CPF, to be exercised latest by 30.9.1987. The substance of the OM may be summarised as follows:
All CPF beneficiaries, who were in service on 1.1.1986 and still in service on 1.5.1987 would be “deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme” unless they opted to continue in CPF in the prescribed form latest by 30.9.1987.
The High Court held that employees in Categories I and III should be deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme since they stood automatically covered by it by virtue of the provisions of the OM of 1.5.1987.
While the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petitions of employees in Category II, it noted that “as per the additional affidavit filed by the University of Delhi”, 2469 employees, who had positively opted for CPF before 30.9.1987 had been allowed by the University to switch over to GPF after that deadline. Of these, “1368 had retired and were now in receipt of pension from University of Delhi, out of the funds made available by the UGC”. It further noted the position taken by the counsels for the Union of India and the UGC that expenditure on account of the said employees “would have to be borne and adjusted by the University of Delhi under the head ‘unapproved expenditure’”. It may be noted that even the counsels for the Union of India and the UGC did not argue for stopping pension payments. Their arguments were aimed rather at defending themselves against the financial liability incurred due to the extensions granted by the University of Delhi.
What needs to be particularly emphasised here is that the High Court has nowhere declared such expenditure as “unapproved”. It only noted the view expressed by the counsels for the Union of India and the UGC. In fact, the High Court categorically stated: “Since, the case of those 2469 employees is not before me, I am not required to return a finding on them.” The High Court certainly did not hold that pension payments made to such employees should be stopped.
The Task Force and the EC deliberately misrepresented the High Court judgments in order to justify their decision to issue a three month notice to stop pension payments. This decision constitutes an inhuman attack on the livelihood of people in their old age.
It is also pertinent to question the records on the basis of which the University provided the figure of 2469 employees to the Court, including 1368 already retired. An investigation of these records may show that many of these employees opted for CPF after the deadline of 30.09.1987 or not at all, in which case they would be automatically deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme as in the case of the petitioners in Categories I and III. The subsequent act of opting for GPF in response to one of the extensions offered by the University cannot itself be construed to mean that these employees had in fact opted for CPF on or before the deadline set by the OM of 1.5.1987.
Instead of taking up the issue with a view to finding ways to ensure “the welfare of the employees serving as well as retired” (as mentioned in the written mandate given to the Task Force), the University has rushed to take a decision that immediately and severely threatens the welfare of these employees. As explained above, this decision of the University has no basis in the High Court judgments but in a deliberate misrepresentation of the same.
LETTER FROM MHRD DATED 11.7.2014
On 11.7.2014, the MHRD wrote to the University (Annexure 4) enclosing two Office Memorandums of the Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare, the first dated 1.5.1987, on which the High Court based its judgments, and another dated 23.6.2014, which had a further enclosure, a note from the Department of Expenditure. The MHRD letter stated explicitly: “In view of the contents in the Office Memorandums enclosed herewith, the University of Delhi may please re-examine the matter in consultation with the UGC and apprise this Department”.
Nowhere has the MHRD even suggested that the University should challenge the High Court order. Neither has the MHRD indicated any decision of its own as yet to challenge the High Court order. It is also pertinent that the Task Force and the EC decision did not mention the first enclosure, the OM of 1.5.1987, nor did they read the High Court judgments carefully. They based their decision solely only the second OM of 23.6.2014 and its enclosure.
The second OM of 23.6.2014 (see Annexure 4) makes the following points:
(i) that Department of Expenditure had stated in a note dated 12.10.2012 that MHRD has to challenge the High Court order;
(ii) that employees “who had continued to subscribe towards CPF Scheme after 30.9.1987 are persons who had exercised an option to remain in CPF and that “this can be interpreted as a ‘deemed option’”.
It is evident that the second OM completely misinterprets the OM of 1.5.1987 and inverts its meaning and purpose. Whereas the OM of 1.5.1987 categorically states that all employees who fail to opt to continue in CPF by 30.9.1987 would be “deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme”, the OM of 23.6.2014 suggests that all employees who failed to opt for GPF by the said date would be “deemed” to have opted for CPF. That this is a clear misconception of the OM of 1.5.1987 has been pointed out both by the High Court and the Supreme Court :
“… notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners in this batch of petitions had overtly expressed their desire to continue in the CPF Scheme, they got automatically covered by the Pension Scheme, once, the cut-off date of 30.09.1987, was crossed.” [High Court judgment: N C. Bakshi vs Union Of India & Ors. on 30 April, 2014, pp.8-9] (See Annexure 2-I)
“The Central Government, in our opinion, proceeded on a basic misconception. By reason of the said Office Memorandum dated 1.5.1987 a legal fiction was created. Only when an employee consciously opted for to continue with the CPF Scheme, he would not become a member of the Pension Scheme….It may be that they had made an option to continue with the CPF Scheme at a later stage but if by reason of the legal fiction created, they became members of the Pension Scheme, the question of their reverting to the CPF would not arise.” [Supreme Court judgment: Union Of India & Anr vs S.L. Verma & Ors on 28 November 2006, pp.2-3, also cited in High Court judgment: Dr. R.N. Virmani & Ors. vs University Of Delhi & Anr. on 30 April, 2014, p.25] (Annexure 5)
On this issue, the aforesaid High Court judgment was in fact based on the Supreme Court judgment of 2006 cited above.
The Task Force recommendation to file an appeal in the High Court and its adoption by the EC show nothing but blatant disregard and contempt for this significant aspect of the judgments. Public money will be squandered for this purpose and it will have the immediate disastrous effect of delaying settlement of retirement dues of the concerned employees.
OPEN LETTER TO TEACHERS FROM VICE-CHANCELLOR
In an Open Letter sent by email to teachers on 21.8.2014 (Annexure 6), the Vice-Chancellor has sought to defend the EC decisions by further emphasising the selective misreadings of the High Court judgments and the letter from the MHRD outlined above and by mischievously putting the blame for these decisions on teachers who had sought justice from the Court.
The Vice-Chancellor has claimed:
- that pension payments of teachers, serving or retired, who had opted for pension during the extensions granted by the University after 30.09.1987 have been declared “unapproved expenditure” by the High Court.
- that MHRD has forwarded an OM dated 23.6.2014 of the Department of Pensions & Pensioners Welfare directing that Category I and III are to be treated as those who exercised a “deemed option” to continue in CPF and therefore not entitled to pensions and
- that on the basis of the new OM the University is bound to challenge the High Court order (and therefore the relief provided by it to a large number of employees)
The High Court, as outlined above, has not declared expenditure on pensions as “unapproved expenditure” nor even suggested stoppage of pensions. It has noted the views of the counsels for the UGC and MHRD that such expenditure would have to be borne and adjusted by the University under the head “unapproved expenditure”.
As regards the second point, the Vice-Chancellor’s email argues that the MHRD by forwarding the OM of 23.6.2014 has directed the University to treat Category I and III as having exercised a “deemed option” in favour of CPF and as therefore not entitled to pensions. He deliberately omits to mention that the MHRD also forwarded the OM of 1.5.1987 and that it in fact directed the University to “re-examine the matter in consultation with the UGC” in view of both the OMs. As reported in the EC, the University had sent a letter to the UGC but has received no reply so far. Evidently, no “consultation”, as directed by the MHRD letter of 11.7.2014, has taken place so far.
The University’s unilateral decision to take the matter to Court once again after the judgments of 30.04.2014 can only be seen as a deliberate move to delay the payment of retirement dues to thousands of teachers, serving and retired. The record of this University administration under the current Vice-Chancellor shows that it has misappropriated crores of rupees for unjustified purchases and squandered huge sums on litigation against its employees. But it has no compunction in stopping or delaying the retirement dues of employees in their old age.
We, therefore, request your urgent intervention to stop the University from going ahead with the harmful decisions taken by the EC on 14.8.2014.
We may further point out that the affected employees have already endured undue hardship and agony for long. All of them became victims of the seemingly unending confusions created in the process of transition from the pro-pension policy of the Government at the time of the Fourth Pay Commission to the subsequent pro-CPF policy. The High Court judgments sought to put an end to these confusions. A one-time solution by the Government for all employees who were already in service on 1.1.86. and failed to get the benefit of pension in the process of these confusions would allow them a life of dignity in their old age. We would be grateful for your personal intervention in this regard.
With regards,
Yours sincerely,
| NANDITA NARAIN President, DUTA |
HARISH KHANNA Secretary, DUTA |
Encl:
1. Annexure 1: EC agenda of 14.8.2014
2. Annexure 2: Delhi High Court judgments of 30.4.2014
- Annexure 2-I: N C. Bakshi vs Union Of India & Ors.
- Annexure 2-II: Kanta Batra & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.
- Annexure 2-III: Dr. R.N. Virmani & Ors. vs University Of Delhi & Anr.
3. Annexure 3: OM (Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare) dated 1.5.1987
4. Annexure 4: Letter from MHRD dated 11.7.2014
5. Annexure 5: Supreme Court judgment : Union Of India & Anr vs S.L. Verma & Ors on 28 November 2006
6. Annexure 6: Open Letter by Vice-Chancellor dated 21.8.2014
Leave a Reply