The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to exercise the option to join a Pension Scheme, despite multiple opportunities, constitutes waiver of the right to claim benefits under the Pension Scheme.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that the Respondents be directed to extend the benefits of Pension Scheme to the petitioners, as per Circular dated 02.02.1984.

2. Learned Advocate, Mr. Apurva Dave, appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were, initially, appointed as Staff Nurse and were posted in various hospitals / medical institutions run by Respondent No.3-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (in brief, ‘AMC’).

2.1 It was submitted that during the course of their employment, the petitioners were promoted / their services were upgraded from time to time.

2.2 At this stage, it was pointed out that Respondent No.3-AMC issued a Circular dated 02.02.1984, wherein, it was provided that those employees, who joined services after 01.01.1983, shall be eligible and entitled to the benefit of Pension Scheme.

2.2.1 It may be noted that prior to the issuance of the Circular dated 02.02.1984, a Scheme, known as the Contributory Provident Fund (in short, ‘CPF’) was in existence for the employees of Respondent No.3- AMC.

2.2.2 Further, the Circular dated 02.02.1984 provided that the employees, who have joined services prior to 01.01.1983, shall have to exercise their option either to continue with the CPF Scheme or to join the Pension Scheme.

2.2.3 In the Circular dated 02.02.1984, it was stated that the employees, who wished to continue the CPF Scheme, shall have to fill-up a consent form and the employees, who do not fill-up the consent form, shall be treated as the employees, who have opted for the Pension Scheme.

2.2.4 It was also stated in the Circular dated 02.02.1984 that the employees, who joined the services after 01.01.1983, shall be eligible and entitled for the Pension Scheme, accordingly.

2.3 Learned Advocate, Mr. Dave, submitted that since the petitioners did not submit the Consent Form, they are deemed to have accepted the Pension Scheme.

2.4 It appears that Respondent No.3-AMC, thereafter, issued various circulars from time to time.

2.5 It was pointed out from the record that Respondent No.4 issued a Circular dated 02.01.1989, whereby, it was provided that the employees, who have completed three years’ service and have become permanent employees, the amount of GPF shall be deducted from their salary compulsorily.

2.5.1 Reliance was also placed on the various circulars produced on record.

2.6 Thereafter, it was submitted that before retirement, Petitioner No.1, herein, made a representation dated 06.04.2017 and requested the Respondent-authorities that as she is retiring from the service on 31.05.2017, the Pension Scheme may be made applicable to her. However, such a request was not accepted by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

2.7 Hence, the petitioners have preferred the present petition.

3. Learned Advocate, Mr. Dave, appearing for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court (Coram: Mr. Biren Vaishnav, J.), Dated: 22.01.2020, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 132 of 2018.

3.1 It was submitted that against the order dated 22.01.2020, Respondent No.3-AMC had preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 736 of 2020, which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court with certain observations and clarifications vide order dated 12.10.2020.

3.2 Learned Advocate, Mr. Dave, next placed reliance on the decision of this Court, Dated: 04.08.2017, rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 664 of 2016 and the allied matters.

3.3 Then, learned Advocate, Mr. Dave, placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court, rendered in the case of ‘Union of India & Another Vs. S.L. Verma & Others’, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 53.

3.4 It was, therefore, prayed that this petition be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Mr. Munshaw, appearing for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 strongly opposed this petition and referred to the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of Responden