The main legal point established in the judgment is that an employee's failure to exercise the option for a pension scheme within the stipulated period, coupled with the enjoyment of benefits from an alternative scheme, precludes the employee from claiming entitlement to the pension scheme.

JUDGMENT :

1. This two petitions are arising out of the identical facts and are raising the same issues and hence, at the request of both the sides, the same are taken up for joint hearing and final disposal. With consent, the facts are recorded from Special Civil Application No.11129 of 2017, where the respondent on behalf the Corporation has already filed the reply. At request, learned Advocate appearing for the Corporation and with consent of the learned Advocate for the petitioner on principle, the reply filed in this petition be treated as reply to both the petitions.

2. This petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India is filed with following prayers :

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus holding that the Petitioners are eligible and entitled to be extended the benefit of pension scheme as per the Circular dated 02.02.1984 at Annexure B, in the interest of justice.

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to extend pension and other benefits to the petitioners arising out of Circular dated 02.02.1984 at Annexure B, in the interest of justice.”

3. Essentially, the case of the petitioner is to hold that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of Pension scheme and not be treated as member of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as Staff Nurse in the Medical Hospital managed by the respondent-Corporation and were therefore, thoroughly engaged in their own work and were not aware of the Scheme, which was floated for the purpose of benefit of pension and therefore, the petitioner had not exercised option. It is submitted that in fact the tenor of the Scheme for pension adopted by the respondent-Corporation does not require exercise of option, as the Scheme itself provided by in case, the employee fails to exercise the option of continuing in the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, then such employee be treated to be beneficiary of the pension scheme and as the petitioners had not exercised such option, automatically, the petitioner will have to be treated as beneficiary of the pension scheme.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has immediately drawn attention of this Court to the Circular No.52 dated 02-02-1984 and submitted that Circular itself suggested the employee, who was in employment prior to 01-01-1983 and was in the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, had to exercise option, if he had to continue in the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme or else, such employee treated to be beneficiary of newly introduced Pension Scheme. The petitioners therefore, were entitled to believe that as per the parent Circular, they are required to exercise option only if they wanted to continue in the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and as the petitioners were desirous to receive benefit from newly introduced Pension Scheme, they were not require to exercise any option, as newly introduced Pension Scheme will automatically apply to the petitioners.

6. He thereafter draws attention of this Court the subsequent Circulars and submitted that Office instructions were issued specifically for undertaking exercise of deduction towards the GPF from the salary accounts of employees and therefore also, the petitioners were under bonafide impression that their case is being considered to be beneficiary for Pension Scheme.

7. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Union of India and another v/s. S. L. Verma and others reported in (2006) 12 SCC 53 to submit that in case of giving option for the purpose of Scheme, those employees who specifically elect to be governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, only they were required to give option to continue.

8. Learned Advocate for the petitione