CPF Appointee After Cut-Off Not Eligible for Old Pension | HC

Case Details: Corporation Bank vs. Radhey Shyam [2026] 183 taxmann.com 525 (HC-Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• C. Hari Shankar & Om Prakash Shukla, JJ.
• Rajat Arora, Niraj Kumar & Sourabh Mahela, Advs. for the Appellant.
• A.P. Verma, Adv. & Ms Manisha Agrawal Narain, CGSC for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the respondent was appointed as a probationary clerk in the appellant Bank with effect from 5-4-2010. The appointment letter specifically stated that the respondent would be governed by the defined Contributory Retirement Benefit Scheme following the MoU dated 27-11-2009. The respondent joined the services of the Bank on 5-4-2010.

The MoU envisaged that persons appointed after 1st April 2010 would be covered by the contributory scheme, not the 1995 Pension Regulations. After about two years of service, the respondent filed a petition seeking a mandamus to extend the pension under the 1995 Regulations rather than the contributory scheme.

The Single Judge rejected the Bank’s submissions and allowed the respondent’s writ petition on the ground that estoppel would not stand in the way of enforcement of fundamental rights and that the respondent had been discriminated vis-a-vis one Sumit Panchal who had been granted pension in accordance with the 1995 Pension Regulations.

It was noted that the appointment letter made it perfectly clear that the respondent would be governed by the benefits of the CPF Scheme. Even if the MoU is ignored, the appointment letter would bind the respondent.

It is settled law, enunciated in Vidyavardaka Sangha v Y.D. Deshpande (2006) 12 SCC 482, that an employee is governed by the terms and conditions of his offer of appointment.

Moreover, Clause 5(c) of the appointment letter left no room for doubt, as it clearly stated that the respondent would be bound by the terms of the CPF scheme. The respondent accepted the said stipulation without demur.

The High Court observed that the view adopted by the Single Judge cannot be sustained as Mr Sumit Panchal, vis-à-vis whom the Single Judge has found the respondent to have been discriminated, was differentially situated. Mr. Panchal had joined the services of the Bank before 5-4-2010 and was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the 1995 Pension Regulations.

The Single Judge, therefore, clearly erred in proceeding on the ground that there was discrimination between the respondent and Mr Sumit Panchal.

High Court Held

The High Court held that since the respondent had not chosen to challenge provisions of the MoU or the appointment letter issued to him, he could not even have maintained a petition before the High Court, as the prayer in the writ petition was in the teeth of Clause 5(c) of the appointment letter as well as the terms of the MoU. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the single judge allowing the writ petition was to be quashed and set aside.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Vidyavardaka Sangha v. Y.D. Deshpande (2006) 12 SCC 482 (para 18) followed
• Inspector Rajendra Singh v. UOI 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7879 (para 28) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

• Radhey Shyam v. Union of India [WP (C) No. 6003 of 2012] (para 8)
• Corporation Bank v. Radhey Shyam [Civil Appeal No. 5161 of 2017, dated 9-11-2023] (para 12)
• Vidyavardaka Sangha v. Y.D. Deshpande (2006) 12 SCC 482 (para 18)
• Inspector Rajendra Singh v. UOI 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7879 (para 26).