Can a govt employee switch pension scheme after accepting regularisation terms and benefits? SC decides

The Supreme Court on Thursday, August 20, 2026, dismissed a petition by a retired professor of the National Institute of Rural Development (NIRD) who sought pension benefits under the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension Scheme (GPF) instead of the Central Pension Fund Scheme (CPF) under which he had been covered throughout his service. The apex court held that he could not challenge the terms of his regularisation after accepting retiral benefits under CPF.

A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar, in its judgment delivered on August 20 in K. Suman Chandra versus Union of India and Others, upheld the Telangana High Court's order setting aside the Central Administrative Tribunal's ruling in the employee's favour.

Case history

The dispute has its roots in a career spanning nearly three decades.

Chandra was initially appointed as a Research Associate with NIRD on a contractual basis on November 12, 1984. As per the office order dated November 13, 1984, he was covered under the CPF Scheme. His services were regularised with effect from November 7, 1985. He was subsequently appointed as Assistant Director on March 9, 1992 on a regular basis, as Deputy Director on August 10, 1999 on a contractual basis, and as Professor on May 1, 2007, again on a contractual basis.

His services as a Professor were regularised through an office order dated May 4, 2012.

The order stipulated that the regularisation would take effect from the date of the order itself, and that the petitioner's services would continue to be governed by the existing CPF Scheme. The services of another colleague, Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma, were regularised on the same date on identical terms.

The petitioner retired from service on January 31, 2017, and was paid all his retiral benefits on February 14, 2017, which included the NIRD's contribution to the CPF amount besides his own contribution. After the retirement, however, Chandra approached the CAT, seeking a declaration that NIRD's decision to continue him under the CPF Scheme instead of the GPF Scheme was illegal and contrary to the NIRD Rules of 2011 as well as the NIRD Service Bye-laws.

The CAT, by its judgment dated July 15, 2019, allowed the petitioner's original application and directed NIRD to permit him to come under the GPF Scheme from the date he was eligible. This was because the CAT had earlier allowed a similar application filed by Sharma, whose services were also regularised on May 4, 2012.

However, the Supreme Court had already reversed the Sharma decision. On February 28, 2023, in National Institute of Rural Development versus Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma and Others, the court held that the regularisation of Sharma's services pursuant to the order dated May 4, 2012 would operate from the date of that order and would not relate back to the date of his initial appointment. The apex court found that it was "specifically stated in the order of regularisation dated 04.05.2012 that it would take effect from the date of issuance of the order, which condition had not been challenged by Mr. S.S.P. Sharma".

When NIRD challenged the CAT's order in the petitioner's case before the High Court, the High Court took note of the Supreme Court's judgment in the Sharma case and concluded that the petitioner's case was similar. The High Court found that "the effect of regularisation would, therefore, be from 04.05.2012 and not from the date of his initial appointment" and that "the petitioner had approached the CAT only after his retirement that too after receiving benefits under the CPF Scheme".

What SC said

Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel attempted to distinguish his case from that of Sharma. However, the court was unconvinced.

"We are of the considered view that the adjudication undertaken in S.S.P. Sharma (supra) by this Court would also apply to the case of petitioner," the bench said.

The top court noted that the petitioner's case was based on the same Office Order No. 98 dated May 4, 2012, by which services of academic staff working on a contractual basis were regularised. The terms and conditions of regularisation included the order taking effect from the date of issuance, as well as services being "continued to be governed by the existing CPF Scheme."

One of the Supreme Court's key observations was on the timing of the challenge. It noted that "the terms and conditions of regularisation stipulated in the Office Order dated 04.05.2012 were not challenged by the petitioner at any point of time, as also in the case of Mr. S.S.P. Sharma. Having accepted the terms and conditions for regularisation of services on the post of Professor and the grievance in this regard having been raised post-retirement after accepting benefits under the CPF Scheme, the petitioner was rightly non-suited by the High Court."

The court held that the petitioner was "similarly situated as Mr. S.S.P. Sharma, especially in the backdrop of the fact that the services of Mr. S.S.P. Sharma and the petitioner were regularised by the Office Order dated 04.05.2012 on identical conditions."

The judgment implies that employees who accept regularisation on specified terms and receive benefits under a particular pension scheme cannot challenge those terms only after retirement.

The apex court found "no reason, whatsoever, to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India" and dismissed the special leave petition.