The main legal point established in the judgment is that the option to change the pension scheme should be exercised within the specified time frame, and the decision of the university to reject the petitioner's claim was considered by competent authorities at all levels.

1. Heard Mr. R. Murugesan for Mr. M.V. Venkataseshan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.A.V. Bharathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

2. This is a writ petition, which a retired Professor – Head of the Department of University of Pondicherry, has filed for a direction to direct the respondents to grant Central Pension to the petitioner as applicable to the similarly placed employees of the respondents' university.

3. According to the petitioner he is a Post Graduate in M.A. History. He has also completed M.Lit. and Ph.D from University of Delhi and as such he is qualified person eligible for appointment in the Department of History in all the Universities. On 24.11.1983 petitioner was appointed as a "Deputy Director" in the National Institute of Rural Development, hereinafter referred to as NIRD, at Hyderabad. He resigned from the said post on 05.01.1988. He got himself appointed as "Reader" in the respondent University on 07.01.1988, as seen from the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 10.03.1988. While he was working in NIRD he had opted for "Central Provident Fund Scheme", hereinafter referred to as the CPF Scheme, for the purpose of monetary benefit at the time of retirement. The C.P.F. Scheme opted by the petitioner while he was working in NIRD was transferred to the respondent University vide N.I.R.D's letter dated 16.04.1991. Later petitioner was promoted as Professor in the Department of History on 29.01.2001 and was finally superannuated as Professor and Head of the Department of the History Department of the respondent University on 31.08.2005. While so, the petitioner realised that the General Provident Fund cum Pension Scheme, hereinafter referred to as the G.P.F. Scheme, would be more beneficial than C.P.F. Scheme and hence, on 09.03.1988 itself he sent a representation to the 1st respondent requesting for permission to change the pension scheme from C.P.F. Scheme to G.P.F. Scheme. There was no response from the 1st respondent. Petitioner also made further representations on 06.05.1998 and 29.05.2001. But there was no response from the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner such inaction on the part of the respondents is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in law. According to the petitioner, while the 1st respondent is the competent authority for ordering the change over of the scheme, the 3rd respondent who is subordinate to the 1st respondent is incompetent to issue a circular dated 15.06.2003. It is also submitted that such circular issued by the 3rd respondent is the copy of the circular issued by University Grant Commission marked to the Finance Department of the Central Government which is not binding on the petitioner.

4. Petitioner's contention is that under the C.P.F. Scheme, both the employee and employer's contribution is disbursed a s one time payment on the eve of retirement. The petitioner's pay scale was Rs/ 3,750/- when he joined in N.I.R.D. and his basic in the respondent University is Rs.3,950/- and at the time of retirement, his basic pay was Rs.19,550/-. This was due to increase during the implementation of the Vth Pay Commission. It was the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that whenever petitioner's pay scale was raised, he requested the respondent to permit him to change over from C.P.F. Scheme to G.P.F. Scheme. One such representation was submitted on 30.11.2003. In fact, petitioner has also represented the matter to the Chairman of the 6th Pay Commission. But there was no response. In addition to such Provident Fund Scheme all institutions are also having Pension Schemes as per the relevant Pension Rules. So petitioner's option to CPF Scheme would not be a bar for him to get G.P.F. Scheme after his retirement. So, the denial of pension to the petitioner by the respondent on the ground of the petitioner has enjoyed the CPF Scheme is a clear case of malafide and non-exercise of power.

5. It is his case that non gr