Delhi High Court Rules Pension is a Right, Not a Bounty; Directs National Institute of Immunology to Extend Pensionary Benefits Under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court ruled that the employees of the National Institute of Immunology (NII), an autonomous body under the Department of Biotechnology, were entitled to pensionary benefits under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. It clarified that pension is not a “bounty” or a discretionary payment by the employer but a matter of right. The court directed NII to grant these benefits in line with the Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 01.05.1987.

The court emphasized the legal fiction created by the O.M.: employees under the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme were deemed to have switched to the Pension Scheme unless they explicitly opted out by the stipulated deadline.

Facts

1. Background: NII, established as an autonomous institution under the Department of Biotechnology, originally followed the CPF Scheme. Under this scheme, employees received contributions from both themselves and the employer but did not have pension benefits.
2. Pension Scheme Introduction: Following the Fourth Central Pay Commission’s recommendations, the O.M. dated 01.05.1987 allowed employees of institutions under the Central Government to switch to the Pension Scheme unless they explicitly chose to stay in the CPF Scheme. However, this choice was never communicated to NII employees.
3. Petitioners: The petitioners comprised former NII employees and legal heirs of deceased employees, claiming they were automatically entitled to pensionary benefits because they were not given the option to remain in the CPF Scheme.
4. Respondents: The respondents included NII, the Department of Biotechnology, and the Department of Expenditure, who argued that NII’s employees were not Central Government employees and thus could not claim pensionary benefits under the O.M.

Issues

The case revolved around two main issues:

1. Applicability: Whether employees of an autonomous body like NII could claim benefits under the Pension Scheme meant for Central Government employees.
2. Automatic Inclusion: Whether the Pension Scheme applied automatically to employees who did not explicitly opt out or if it required them to opt in.

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Applicability of O.M. (1987): The petitioners argued that under the O.M., employees were automatically included in the Pension Scheme unless they opted to remain in the CPF Scheme. Since they were never given this choice, they were deemed to have switched to the Pension Scheme.
2. Discrimination: The petitioners highlighted that other autonomous institutions under similar administrative ministries, like the National Institute of Biologicals and Central Council for Research in Ayurveda & Siddha, had extended the Pension Scheme to their employees. Denying NII employees the same benefits was discriminatory.
3. Arbitrary Actions: By failing to circulate the O.M. among employees, NII deprived its employees of their right to make an informed choice. The lack of action effectively violated principles of fairness.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Autonomous Status of NII: NII, being an autonomous body, was not obligated to implement Central Government circulars unless explicitly adopted in its rules. The respondents claimed that the O.M. was never incorporated into NII’s regulations.
2. Financial Implications: Granting pensionary benefits retroactively would impose a significant financial burden on NII and the government.
3. Policy Limitations: The respondents argued that the court should not interfere in matters of policy, as judicial review in such cases is limited to examining fundamental rights violations or arbitrariness.

Analysis of the Law

1. Legal Fiction Created by O.M. 1987: The O.M. mandated that all employees in service as of January 1, 1986, would be automatically covered under the Pension Scheme unless they chose to remain in the CPF Scheme. This established the Pension Scheme as the default option.
2. Applicability to Autonomous Bodies: Clause 7.2 of the O.M. extended its applicability to autonomous institutions under Central Government ministries, making NII’s employees eligible for the scheme.
3. Precedents Supporting Petitioners:
   • S.L. Verma (2006): The Supreme Court ruled that employees must consciously opt out of the Pension Scheme; otherwise, they were automatically included.
   • Shashi Kiran (2022): Denying employees the option to switch to the Pension Scheme when others in similar institutions were given this right constituted arbitrariness.
   • Manoj Pant (2022): If employees did not exercise an option to remain in the CPF Scheme, they were deemed to have switched to the Pension Scheme automatically.

Precedent Analysis

The court analyzed several precedents and noted:

• Employees of autonomous bodies were entitled to pensionary benefits if the institution fell under the purview of administrative ministries.
• Institutions under similar administrative control had extended the Pension Scheme to their employees, and NII’s failure to do so amounted to discrimination.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Autonomy vs. Accountability: While NII is an autonomous institution, it operates under the administrative control of the Department of Biotechnology. Employees under such control were entitled to the Pension Scheme unless explicitly excluded.
2. Failure to Circulate O.M.: The court noted that NII admitted it never circulated the O.M. to its employees, depriving them of the chance to opt out of the Pension Scheme.
3. Arbitrariness: Denying pensionary benefits to NII employees when other institutions had extended them was arbitrary and violated the principles of equity and fairness.

Conclusion

The court ruled in favor of the petitioners and directed:

1. NII to extend pensionary benefits under the O.M. dated 01.05.1987.
2. Contributions made under the CPF Scheme by NII to be recouped with interest while compensating employees with arrears on pension payments at an 8% interest rate.
3. Employees or their legal heirs uninterested in switching to the Pension Scheme could opt out.

Implications

1. Employee Rights: The judgment reaffirms pension as a legal right rather than a discretionary benefit.
2. Equity Among Institutions: It sets a precedent for other autonomous bodies under Central Government ministries to ensure uniform implementation of service benefits.
3. Administrative Responsibility: The case highlights the importance of adhering to and disseminating government directives to avoid future litigation.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Invokes Section 528 BNSS, 2023 to Rectify Factual Errors in Judicial Order, Highlights Inherent Powers to Ensure Procedural Justice and Accuracy