Calcutta HC Allows Review Petition Filed By IIM Calcutta Faculty; Confirms Automatic Inclusion Into New Pension Scheme As Per 1987 Memorandum

Background

Ambujaksha Mahanti, a former IIM Calcutta faculty member, was employed before 1985 under the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme. In 1987, IIM issued a notification based on the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission ('1987 memorandum'), introducing a new pension scheme. Employees were required to opt out within six months if they wished to remain under the CPF scheme; otherwise, they would automatically migrate to the new GPF-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme ('new scheme'). While Mahanti did not exercise any option, IIM continued to treat him as a CPF beneficiary.

In 2020, a Division Bench dismissed Mahanti's claim for inclusion in the pension scheme, holding that he failed to opt in. Mahanti filed a review petition, arguing that the 1987 memorandum created a legal fiction that automatically shifted him to the pension scheme unless he opted out. Review was sought both on the ground that there was an error apparent on the face of the judgment dated 14th February 2020 and in light of new facts and documents submitted by Mahanti.

Arguments

Counsel for Mahanti argued that the 1987 memorandum and subsequent notifications explicitly stated that employees failing to opt out would be deemed members of the new pension scheme. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. S.L. Verma [(2006) 12 SCC 53], Mahanti argued that the notification created a legal fiction that automatically transferred employees who did not opt out. He contended that the previous Division Bench erred by not applying this. This, he argued, satisfied Order XXXXVII Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permits review for errors apparent on the face of the record.

However, IIM's counsel argued that Mahanti continued to withdraw benefits under the CPF scheme and did not challenge his classification until much later. They maintained that his actions contradicted his claim, and argued that his silence amounted to acceptance of the CPF scheme.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, the court noted that the 1987 memorandum clearly established that employees who did not opt out within six months would automatically transition to the new pension scheme. It found that Mahanti's failure to exercise an option in 1987 meant he was automatically governed by the GPF-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme, per the legal fiction created by the memorandum.

Further, the court relied on the Supreme Court judgement in S.L. Verma, which considered very similar facts, and held that employees who did not opt out must be deemed as members of the new pension scheme. The court ruled that the previous Division Bench overlooked this binding precedent, leading to a mistake 'apparent on the face of the record'.

The court observed that the most glaring error in the 2020 order was the finding that Mahanti “has not chosen to come under the GPF and hence will not get pension.” The court noted that this finding contradicted the memorandum, and the division bench's own finding that Mahanti comes under the 4th Pay Commission which mandates pension.

Lastly, the court acknowledged the new documents submitted during the review, including minutes of meetings and financial statements. It held that these documents further corroborated and supported Mahanti's case. Thus, the court allowed the review petition, and set aside the dismissal of Mahanti's appeal. It directed IIM Calcutta to treat him as a member of the new GPF-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme from July 1987.

Decided on: 10-12-2024

Case No.: RVW 173 of 2021 | Ambujaksha Mahanti v. Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, Senior Advocate; Mr. Shamit Sanyal, and Mr. Dip Jyoti Chakraborty

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. L.K. Gupta, Senior Advocate; Mr. D.N. Ray, Mr. Bhaskar Mukherjee, and Ms. Debadrita Dutta

Click Here To Read/Download The Order