The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar has held that the regularisation of an employee’s services takes effect from the date of issuance of the regularisation order and does not relate back to the date of initial appointment, dismissing a plea by a retired Professor of the National Institute of Rural Development (NIRD) seeking coverage under the General Provident Fund (GPF)-cum-Pension Scheme instead of the Contributory Pension Fund (CPF) Scheme. Condoning the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition, the apex court affirmed the judgment of the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad, which had set aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that had granted relief to the petitioner.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, K. Suman Chandra, was initially appointed as a Research Associate with NIRD on a contractual basis on November 12, 1984, under the CPF Scheme as per an Office Order dated November 13, 1984. His services were regularised on November 7, 1985. Subsequently, he was appointed as Assistant Director on a regular basis on March 9, 1992, Deputy Director on a contractual basis on August 10, 1999, and Professor on a contractual basis on May 1, 2007.
On May 4, 2012, via Office Order No. 98, his services on the post of Professor were regularised along with another employee, Mr. Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma (Mr. S.S.P. Sharma). The petitioner retired from service on January 31, 2017, and received all retiral benefits on February 14, 2017, including NIRD’s contribution to his CPF amount along with his own contribution.
Following his retirement, the petitioner filed Original Application (O.A.) No. 45 of 2017 before the CAT, Hyderabad, seeking a declaration that continuing him under the CPF Scheme instead of the GPF Scheme was illegal and contrary to the NIRD Rules of 2011 and Chapter IX Para 52 Section 4 of the NIRD Service Bye-laws.
Earlier, Mr. S.S.P. Sharma had filed O.A. No. 109 of 2015 before the CAT seeking similar reliefs. The CAT allowed Mr. S.S.P. Sharma’s application on August 27, 2018, and a writ petition filed against it by the Union of India and others was dismissed by the High Court. Relying on its earlier decision in Mr. S.S.P. Sharma’s case, the CAT allowed the petitioner’s O.A. on July 15, 2019, directing NIRD to permit him to switch to the GPF Scheme from the date he was eligible.
Subsequent Developments and Arguments
In the interregnum, NIRD challenged the adjudication in Mr. S.S.P. Sharma’s case before the Supreme Court. On February 28, 2023, in National Institute of Rural Development Vs. Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma and Others (Civil Appeal No. 542 of 2023), the Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the CAT and the High Court. The Court held that Bye-law 52 and the Rules of 2011 established that regularisation under the order dated May 4, 2012, operated from the date of the order itself, as the order explicitly stated it would take effect from the date of issuance—a condition that Mr. S.S.P. Sharma had not challenged.
When NIRD’s writ petition against the petitioner came before the High Court of Telangana, NIRD cited the Supreme Court judgment in S.S.P. Sharma. The High Court observed that the petitioner’s case was identical to that of Mr. S.S.P. Sharma, noting that regularisation took effect from May 4, 2012, and that the petitioner had approached the CAT only post-retirement after receiving CPF benefits. Consequently, the High Court allowed NIRD’s writ petition on August 8, 2023, setting aside the CAT order.
Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, sought to distinguish the decision in S.S.P. Sharma. On the other hand, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Senior Advocate for the first respondent, and Ms. Vishakha, counsel for the second respondent, contended that the petitioner was similarly situated to Mr. S.S.P. Sharma and that the judgment applied on all fours.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court examined Office Order No. 98 dated May 4, 2012, which regularised the contractual services of the academic staff, including the petitioner. The order stipulated terms and conditions that explicitly stated regularisation would take effect from the date of the order and that services would continue to be governed by the existing CPF Scheme.
The Court observed:
“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 further emphasized:
“We are in complete agreement with what has been held by this Court in S.S.P. Sharma (supra) and we do not find any reason, whatsoever, to re-open the aforesaid issue at the instance of the petitioner.”
Decision
Finding no reason to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court held:
“In our view, as the petitioner is 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, we do not find any reason, whatsoever, to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
Case Details
Case Title: K. Suman Chandra v. Union of India and Others
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Civil) (@ Diary No. 5679 of 2024)
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Date: August 20, 2026
