Petitioners are entitled to GPF benefits due to consistent administrative recognition and statutory deeming provisions, while the unilateral retrospective alteration of employment terms is impermissible.

ORDER :

1. By way of filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary impugned order dated 29.06.2016, whereby the respondents have wrongly sought to discontinue the petitioner from the GPF-cum-pension scheme. The petitioner seeks quashing of the said order and a direction to the respondents to continue to treat the petitioner under the GPF and pension scheme, to release all retiral benefits accordingly, and to forthwith issue/allot a GPF number to the petitioner, along with such other reliefs as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 29.06.2016, whereby the respondents, despite having themselves placed the petitioner under the General Provident Fund (GPF) Scheme vide order dated 22.09.1996 and having continuously deducted GPF contributions from his salary for several years, have arbitrarily decided to treat the petitioner under the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme and have started deducting CPF contributions in place of GPF with effect from July, 2016, without assigning any reason and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that identically situated employees, who opted for the GPF Scheme along with the petitioner, have been granted the benefit of the GPF Scheme, whereas the petitioner alone has been discriminated against.

3. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Conductor in the respondent department vide appointment order dated 26.10.1981. The petitioner is due to retire on 28.02.2017. A copy of the appointment order is annexed as Annexure-1. The respondents introduced two provident fund schemes for their employees, namely, the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme and the General Provident Fund (GPF) Scheme, and invited options from the employees to opt for either of the schemes. The petitioner submitted his option form dated 14.08.1996, opting for the GPF Scheme. Prior thereto, the petitioner was being considered under the CPF Scheme. The option form submitted by the petitioner is annexed as Annexure-2.

4. That pursuant thereto, the respondents published a list dated 22.08.1996 of employees who were to be considered under the GPF Scheme along with pensionary benefits, wherein the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No. 9. A copy of the said list/order dated 22.08.1996 is annexed as Annexure-3. Thereafter, the respondents started deducting GPF contributions from the salary of the petitioner, as reflected in his pay slips, copies whereof are annexed as Annexure-4 (collectively). One Om Prakash Tak, whose name appeared at Serial No. 20 in the same list dated 22.08.1996, was subsequently granted the benefit of the GPF Scheme vide order dated 27.11.2015, thereby clearly demonstrating discriminatory treatment meted out to the petitioner. A copy of the said office order is annexed as Annexure-5.

5. That despite continuously deducting GPF amounts from the petitioner’s salary, the respondents failed to allot or mention a GPF Account Number to the petitioner, showing gross negligence on their part. Copies of the Pay Drawn Statement and Schedule of GPF are annexed as Annexure-6 (collectively). The petitioner, apprehending serio