Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University Vice-Chancellor T.S.N. Sastry has won a case against his former employer Pondicherry University.
The Madras High Court has held that he should be considered as having been covered under General Provident Fund (GPF) and not Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme ever since he joined service as a lecturer in 1986.
Justice V. Parthiban expressed his strong displeasure over the way in which the administration of Pondicherry University had been handling petitioner’s claim of being covered under GPF scheme. “The university probably has an axe to grind against the petitioner for some reason which can be inferred from the obdurate and relentless stand taken by it against him,” he said.
The judge pointed out that pursuant to the Fourth Pay Commission recommendations, the government had decided to cover all new appointees after January 1, 1986, under GPF. Only the then existing employees were given the option of choosing between GPF or CPF. Since Mr. Sastry was appointed in November 1986, he would automatically get covered only under GPF.
However, for some reason, the Pondicherry University considered him to be covered under CPF and maintained that stand all through though he had raosed the issue with the varsity even after joining Savitribai Phule Pune University and then shifting to his current position.
“The professed stand taken by Pondicherry University consistently all along denying the benefit of GPF Scheme to the petitioner appears to be a little strange and incomprehensible for the reason that the first respondent university has never established that it had CPF scheme in place even after January 1, 1986 in respect of staff who were appointed fresh,” the judge said.
Further, since GPF was made mandatory for all new appointees after January 1, 1986, the question of Mr. Sastry having opted to be in CPF would not arise at all, the judge pointed out. “This court finds that Pondicherry University’s understanding that the petitioner had exercised his option to the CPF scheme was fundamentally flawed and premised on erroneous perspective,” he observed.
