Mukesh Prasad Singh v. The Then Rajendra Agricultural University (Now Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University)
Background
The appellant was appointed as a Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor by the respondent University in 1987, at a time when its governing statute offered employees two retirement schemes: a default General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme, or an optional Contributory Provident Fund scheme that employees had to affirmatively choose. In 2008 the University invited employees to opt into the Contributory Provident Fund within one month, but the appellant did not submit any option. When the University later published its list of employees under the pension scheme, his name was missing, and his writ petition and subsequent writ appeal before the Patna High Court seeking inclusion were both dismissed on the ground that he had failed to exercise his option.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had misread the University's own statute and office order. Under Chapter 16.1 of the University Statute, pension was the default entitlement for all employees unless they specifically opted for the Contributory Provident Fund; the 2008 office order likewise stated that employees who did not exercise any option "shall be included in the Pension Scheme." Since it was undisputed that the appellant never opted for the Contributory Provident Fund, non-exercise of that option automatically placed him in the pension scheme, not outside it. The Court also noted that the same High Court had granted identical relief to similarly placed employees in earlier cases, making the appellant's dismissal inconsistent. It set aside the High Court's order and directed that he be given retiral benefits under the General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme within four months, subject to adjustment for any Contributory Provident Fund benefits he may have already received.
Lesson Learnt
When a service rule or scheme sets a "default" entitlement that applies unless an employee affirmatively opts out, silence or non-response should be read in favour of the default benefit, not against the employee: an institution cannot penalise an employee for not exercising an option that was never mandatory for them to exercise.