Service Law — Pensionary Benefits — General Provident Fund-cum-Pension Scheme (GPF) vs. Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPF) — Claim for retrospective regularisation to claim GPF coverage — Regularisation order explicitly operating prospectively and retaining CPF coverage — Non-challenge to regularisation conditions — Effect. Held: When an employee’s contractual services are regularised by a specific order containing explicit conditions—namely, that the regularisation takes effect from the date of the order and the employee will continue to be governed by the existing CPF Scheme—the regularisation cannot relate back to the date of initial appointment. If the employee accepts the terms and conditions without challenge during service and approaches the Tribunal post-retirement after accepting all retiral benefits under the CPF Scheme, the claim for coverage under the GPF Scheme is unsustainable. (Paras 3, 5, 7)

  2026 INSC 893

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(From: Telangana High Court)

Coram: UJJAL BHUYAN and ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. of 2026 (@ Diary No. 5679 of 2024), D/- 20-08-2026.

K. Suman Chandra — Petitioner

versus

Union of India and Others — Respondents

HEADNOTE

(A) Service Law — Pensionary Benefits — General Provident Fund-cum-Pension Scheme (GPF) vs. Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPF) — Claim for retrospective regularisation to claim GPF coverage — Regularisation order explicitly operating prospectively and retaining CPF coverage — Non-challenge to regularisation conditions — Effect.

Held: When an employee’s contractual services are regularised by a specific order containing explicit conditions—namely, that the regularisation takes effect from the date of the order and the employee will continue to be governed by the existing CPF Scheme—the regularisation cannot relate back to the date of initial appointment. If the employee accepts the terms and conditions without challenge during service and approaches the Tribunal post-retirement after accepting all retiral benefits under the CPF Scheme, the claim for coverage under the GPF Scheme is unsustainable. (Paras 3, 5, 7)

(B) Constitution of India, Art. 136 — Special Leave Petition — Co-employee similarly situated — Issue conclusively decided by coordinate Bench of the Supreme Court — Precedent binding.

Held: Where the petitioner’s claim is identical to that of a co-employee regularised under the same Office Order with identical conditions, and the issue regarding the applicable pension scheme and non-retrospectivity of regularisation has already been authoritatively decided against the employee by the Supreme Court in National Institute of Rural Development v. Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma and Others (Civil Appeal No. 542 of 2023), there is no ground to reopen the issue or exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. (Paras 5, 7, 8)

FACTS

• The Petitioner was appointed on a contractual basis as a Research Associate with the National Institute of Rural Development (NIRD) on 12.11.1984 under the CPF Scheme. His services were regularised as Research Associate w.e.f. 07.11.1985. Thereafter, he was appointed as Assistant Director (regular) in 1992, Deputy Director (contractual) in 1999, and Professor (contractual) on 01.05.2007. (Para 3)
  
  
• Vide Office Order No. 98 dated 04.05.2012, the services of the petitioner and a co-employee (Mr. S.S.P. Sharma) were regularised as Professors on terms providing that regularisation would take effect from the date of the order and services would continue to be governed under the CPF Scheme. (Paras 3, 7)
  
  
• The petitioner retired on 31.01.2017 and received retiral benefits under the CPF Scheme on 14.02.2017. Post-retirement, he approached the CAT seeking GPF Scheme coverage, which the CAT allowed based on its earlier decision in Mr. S.S.P. Sharma's case. (Paras 3, 4)
  
  
• In the appeal against Mr. S.S.P. Sharma's case (NIRD v. Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma, CA No. 542 of 2023, decided on 28.02.2023), the Supreme Court reversed the CAT and High Court decisions, holding that regularisation operated only from the date of the order (04.05.2012) and the employee was entitled only to CPF benefits. Consequently, the High Court of Telangana allowed NIRD's writ petition against the petitioner. (Paras 5, 6)
  
  

ANALYSIS OF FACTS & LAW

• Terms of Regularisation Accepted Without Demur: The petitioner’s contractual service as Professor was regularised under Office Order No. 98 dated 04.05.2012, which specifically provided that the regularisation was prospective and that the existing CPF Scheme would continue to apply. The petitioner accepted these terms throughout his service tenure. (Para 7)
  
  
• Post-Retirement Challenge Barred: The petitioner raised the dispute before the CAT only after his retirement and after accepting the entire CPF corpus (including employer contributions). (Paras 3, 6, 7)
  
  
• Covered Matter: The petitioner's case was identical in all respects to that of Mr. S.S.P. Sharma. The Supreme Court having interpreted the NIRD Rules of 2011 (Rule 6) and Service Bye-laws (Bye-laws 48, 49, and 52) in S.S.P. Sharma (supra), there was no justifiable ground to deviate from or reconsider the binding precedent. (Paras 7, 8)
  
  

CONCLUSION

• The petitioner, having accepted the terms of the regularisation order dated 04.05.2012 and having retired with CPF benefits, was not entitled to GPF-cum-Pension benefits retrospectively.
  
  
• The High Court’s order upholding the application of NIRD v. Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma and setting aside the CAT's order was affirmed.
  
  
• Special Leave Petition was dismissed. (Paras 8, 9)