Failure to opt for the Contributory Provident Fund by the cut-off date leads to automatic inclusion in the Pension Scheme, creating a legal fiction preventing claims against this transition.

Headnote:(A) Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 - Section 3 - Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 - General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960 - Petitioners sought entitlement to Pension Scheme arguing automatic transition based on non-exercise of option under circular dated July 02, 1987 which extended the cut-off date for opting into the Contributory Provident Fund scheme - The court determined the employees who did not exercise the option by the required date automatically transitioned to the Pension Scheme due to legal fiction established by the Office Memorandum dated May 01, 1987, creating presumption of their automatic membership - The petitioners were deemed to have switched to Pension Scheme and entitled to benefits based on their service as employees of Export Inspection Council. (Paras 86-104)

(B) Delay and Laches - The court rejected claims of delay against employees who made timely representations prior to retirement and did not receive a decision, emphasizing their entitlement to overturn previous actions based on administrative lapses and ensuring they receive pension benefits. (Paras 89-94)

Facts of the case:
Employees challenged denial of transition from Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to Pension Scheme after the stipulated cut-off dates, asserting automatic inclusion due to procedural failures of respondents. They argued equitable treatment as similar employees were granted the pension benefits.

Findings of Court:
Petitioners granted deemed inclusion in Pension Scheme, ordered to refund CPF contributions to receive pension benefits, with a clear directive for the government to process pending pension claims efficiently.

Issues: Whether employees automatically transitioned to Pension Scheme upon failing to exercise their options; whether claims were barred by delay and laches.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the Office Memorandum's provisions created a legal fiction mandating that failure to provide opt-in expressly for CPF led to automatic membership in the Pension Scheme, emphasizing the principle that employees should not face penalization for procedural delays or administrative lapses.

Result: Writ petitions allowed; petitioners deemed members of Pension Scheme.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the writ petitions (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. details on pension schemes and employee options (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. government orders influencing employee options (Para 11 , 12 , 16)
4. petitioners' arguments and grievances (Para 18 , 20 , 24)
5. court’s decision on switching from cpf to pension scheme (Para 86 , 99 , 100 , 104)

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

CM. No. 2155/2021 in W.P.(C) 6747/2014

This application has been filed by the respondent No.2 herein for brining on record additional documents. For the reasons stated in the application, the additional documents are taken on record.

Application is allowed and disposed of.

CM. No. 3415/2021 in W.P.(C) 3426/2012

This application has been filed by the respondent Nos.2 & 3 herein for brining on record additional documents. For the reasons stated in the application, the additional documents are taken on record.

Application is allowed and disposed of.

W.P.(C) 6747/2014

W.P.(C) 8601/2010

W.P.(C) 3426/2012

1. Though, the writ petitions were heard on different dates, as identical issue arises for consideration, they are being disposed of by this common order, by referring to the facts of each writ petition separately.

2. The petitioners are employees of the Export Inspection Council of India (`EIC', for short), a statutory organisation under the Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, duly arrayed as a respondent in all three Writ Petitions. EIC was established under Section 3 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 to ensure sound development of export trade in India through quality control and inspection prior to shipment/export and for matters connected therewith. For furtherance of the objectives of the Act, five Export Inspection Agencies (`EIA', for short) were also established at Bombay, Calcutta, Cochin, Delhi and Madras in the year 1966. EIAs are under direct technical and administrative control of EIC. Employees of EIC & EIAs are liable to serve in both EIC and EIAs. The present writ petitions revolve around the issue of whether or not the petitioners are entitled to change over from the Contributory Provident Fund (`CPF', for short) to the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension Scheme (`Pension Scheme', for short).

W.P.(C) 6747/2014

3. The present petition has been filed with the following prayers:

"In the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue:

(a) A writ of certiorari calling for the records of the case for perusal;

(b) A writ of certiorari quashing letter dated 07.11.2013 of Respondent EIC whereby the representation of the petitioner was rejected, being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience;

(c) A writ of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner as having been automatically covered by the Pension Scheme and GPF Scheme, once, the cut-off date of 31.10.1987, was crossed and settle the case of the petitioner accordingly.

d) A writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay cost of this petition to the petitioner.

e) Any other writ or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice."

4. It is contended by Mr. R.K. Saini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that the petitioner is aggrieved by the letter dated November 07, 2013 of EIC, the respondent no. 2 herein, whereby the representation of the petitioner for treating him as having automatically covered by the Pension Scheme in view of the circular dated July 02, 1987 issued by the EIC, was rejected.

5. Petitioner initially joined the services of EIA Bombay on November 15, 1974 as Assistant Director (Tech) and since January 2010 is working as an Additional Director in EIC.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that since inception of EIC and EIAs and up to October 23, 1981, the empl