Allahabad High Court: In a petition filed by employees of Govind Ballabh Pant Social Science Institute (‘GBPSSI’), constituent institution of University of Allahabad (‘AU’), challenging University Grants Commission’s (UGC) rejection of their entitlement to all benefits granted to a Central University employees including the benefit of General Provident Fund Scheme, a Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J., held that in absence of any specific provision for General Provident Fund Scheme only on ground that institution became constituent of Allahabad University, petitioners could not be granted benefit of General Provident Fund Scheme.
Background
In the present case, the petitioners were admittedly appointed on different posts in GBPSSI, registered under Indian Societies Registration Act, 1860 (‘Societies Act’) and being an autonomous institution its finances were catered jointly by Government of India, through Indian Council of Social Science Research, and Government of Uttar Pradesh.
In 2005, AU was conferred with the status of a Central University, and it was adopted as a constituent institution of AU.
The petitioners claimed that by virtue of becoming a constituent institution of AU, they were entitled for all benefits granted to Central University employees including the benefit of pension, i.e., to provide General Provident Fund Scheme instead of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.
The claim of petitioners were considered and rejected by UGC that old scheme under Central Civil Services Pension Rules 1972 (‘CCS Pension Rules’) was not available to any new entry and since GBPSSI was an autonomous body, therefore, despite it was a constituent institution of AU, CCS Rules were not applied to it.
The petitioners argued that they were not granted benefit of pension scheme whereas other employees who were appointed before the cut off date of 2005 of university were getting benefit of pension.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that the petitioners could not be granted benefit of General Provident Fund Scheme only on ground that institution became constituent of AU in absence of any specific provision for General Provident Fund Scheme since it could be granted only on the basis of relevant provisions which were not applicable in the present case.
Further, the Court opined that otherwise also, even after the institution becomes constituent of AU, it still remains autonomous, and its finances are taken care of by the Central Government independently. Therefore, there was no absolute right that petitioners may be granted benefit of the General Provident Fund Scheme. The Court observed that since there was no change in the constitution of the institution even after it became constituent of the AU, petitioners’ claim had no force.
Therefore, the Court held that there was no ground to interfere with impugned order and dismissed the petition.
[S. K. Pant Professor v. UOI, WRIT A. No. 16734 of 2012, decided on 15-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Alok Mishra, Ishir Sripat, Rahul Sripat (Senior Adv.)
For the Respondents: Amrendra Pratap Singh, C.S.C., Chandan Sharma, Manoj Kumar Singh, Radhey Krishna Pandey, Ram Gopal Tripathi, Ritvik Upadhyay, Shailendra, Prakash Singh, V.K. Singh