Archive · 21 Aug 2026
Supreme Court Rejects Post-Retirement Switch Between Pension Schemes
A retired government employee asked to change the pension plan he had used during his career.
He wanted to move from the CPF Scheme to the GPF Scheme.
His job had been regularised in 2012 under terms that kept him in the CPF Scheme.
He retired in January 2017 and accepted CPF retirement payments in February 2017.
After that, he challenged the pension arrangement before the tribunal.
The tribunal initially supported his request.
The High Court disagreed after considering an earlier Supreme Court ruling involving his colleague.
The Supreme Court said the earlier ruling also applied to him.
It concluded that someone who accepts retirement benefits under one scheme cannot later challenge those terms to claim another scheme.
The Supreme Court rejected a retired NIRD professor’s request to move from the CPF Scheme to the GPF Scheme.
The professor had been covered by the CPF Scheme throughout his service and accepted CPF retirement benefits after retiring.
His 2012 regularisation order stated that it would take effect immediately and that existing CPF coverage would continue.
The court held that regularisation could not be treated as effective from his initial appointment date.
The ruling relied on the court’s 2023 decision in a similar case involving NIRD colleague Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, retired NIRD professor Chandra, and the National Institute of Rural Development.
- What
- The court rejected Chandra’s request to switch from the Central Pension Fund Scheme to the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension Scheme after retirement.
- When
- The Supreme Court issued its ruling on Thursday; Chandra retired on January 31, 2017, and received CPF benefits on February 14, 2017.
- Where
- The dispute involved the National Institute of Rural Development and proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal, High Court, and Supreme Court.
- Why
- The court held that Chandra’s regularisation order kept him under the CPF Scheme and that accepting CPF retirement benefits prevented him from challenging those terms later.
Retired employee’s claim
NIRD and courts’ position
Applicable pension scheme
Retired employee’s claim
Chandra argued that the NIRD Rules, 2011 and Service Bye-laws entitled him to coverage under the GPF Scheme.
NIRD and courts’ position
NIRD and the courts maintained that his service remained governed by the CPF Scheme under the terms of his regularisation.
Effect of regularisation
Retired employee’s claim
The claim relied on treating his regularisation as creating eligibility for GPF coverage from an earlier point in his service.
NIRD and courts’ position
The Supreme Court held that regularisation took effect on May 4, 2012, not from the date of his initial appointment.
Challenge after retirement
Retired employee’s claim
Chandra pursued the pension challenge after retiring and receiving CPF benefits.
NIRD and courts’ position
The Supreme Court held that accepting CPF retirement benefits prevented him from subsequently challenging the applicable scheme.
- Petitioner
- Chandra, a retired professor of the National Institute of Rural Development
- Retirement date
- January 31, 2017
- Retiral benefits received
- February 14, 2017, including NIRD’s and Chandra’s CPF contributions
- Requested change
- Coverage under the GPF Scheme instead of the CPF Scheme
- Regularisation order
- May 4, 2012; it stated that regularisation took effect from the order date and that existing CPF coverage continued
- Tribunal decision
- The Central Administrative Tribunal ruled for Chandra on July 15, 2019
- Supreme Court precedent
- A February 28, 2023 ruling in NIRD versus Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma held that similar regularisation did not relate back to initial appointment