Waving off all misconceptions regarding the Cumulative Provident Fund (CPF) to General Provident Fund (GPF) scheme for teachers of Delhi University, Vice Chancellor Dinesh Singh has personally written an open letter to teachers stating hard facts regarding the scheme. He has also dismissed all “misguidance” being offered on the case by “teachers”,indirectly referring to the Delhi University Teachers’ Association (DUTA).
This is the first time the VC has written such an open letter and dismissed DUTA’s claims in writing. He wrote, “I wish to assure all teachers and other employees that the University is — even as I write — engaged actively in finding ways and means to protect the interests of all employees. It is rather unfortunate that some of our colleagues are spreading this misinformation whereby blame is being laid at the door of the University.”
Following an official memorandum from the Department of Pensions and Pensioners Welfare, Singh has said the varsity is bound to challenge the recent High Court order allowing the staff to avail GPF scheme even if they have not opted for it.“The MHRD on July 7 had forwarded an office memorandum dated June 23 issued by the Department of Pensions and Pensioners Welfare, directing that those persons who continued to remain in CPF after the cut-off date in 1987 are to be treated as those who
exercised a ‘deemed option’ to continue in CPF and therefore, not entitled to pensions,” said Singh in the open letter to the varsity staff.As a result of this direction by the Government, he added that the university is bound to file an appeal to challenge the High Court order. The decision to challenge the HC judgement was taken at the Executive Council (EC) meeting on August 14 and has been attracting criticism from teachers as an anti-employee move.
In 1987, the University Grants Commission (UGC) had issued an official memorandum stating that the pension scheme for DU teachers would be changed to a monthly scheme and money would be deducted from employees’ salaries for payment towards GPF unless they opted for CPF, which is paid as a lump sum at the time of retirement. The High Court, in a judgement this April, allowed the staffers to avail of the benefits even if they had not opted for the scheme. On May 27, DU had constituted a task force chaired by the treasurer for suggesting ways for implementation of the HC judgement. However, on recommendations of task force the EC decided to challenge the judgement. “I am constrained to set out these matters in some detail only in order to indicate that the University is striving to protect the pensions of those who retired believing that their options to move to GPF offered by the University between 1988 and 1999 were valid. Further, those who chose not to avail the options then, but who after nearly 20 years petitioned the Court to declare these options granted by the University as invalid, are now covered by the new office memorandum on the basis of which the University is bound to challenge this order in the court,” the VC said.