IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that failure to exercise the option within the prescribed time, acceptance of benefits under a particular scheme without protest, and delay in seeking alternative benefits can bar a claim for benefits under a different scheme.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Ref:Estt/VT/Pension/20-21 dated 24.11.2020 quash the same and direct the respondents to grant the petitioner benefits under the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension-cum Gratuity Scheme with interest from 01.10.2011.)

1. Heard M/s. V.S. Manimekalai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Janarthanam, learned Standing Panel Counsel for the 1st respondent and Mr. A.R.L. Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the respondents 2 and 3 and perused the materials available on record.

2. The petitioner has joined the National Institute of Technical Teachers' Training Institute [NITTTR], Taramani, in Civil Engineering on 31.03.1976 and in the year 1978, he was relieved from NITTTR and joined the Regional Engineering College, Trichy, as an Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering. The petitioner again joined the NITTTR as Assistant Professor on 01.03.1979. After joining as Assistant Professor, he submitted a Letter dated 14.03.1979, subscribing to Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) from the month of March 1979. Based on the written request made by the petitioner, he was placed under CPF Scheme. The petitioner was appointed as a Program Executive on 22.09.1989 and he was governed by CPF-G cum Gratuity Scheme. However, the petitioner later joined as a Professor in the Corresponding course with a different scale of pay.

3. On 12.08.2011, the petitioner submitted an application for re-employment and also seeking permission to opt for GPF Scheme. However his application was rejected on 05.11.2011 and he retired on 30.11.2011. On 05.03.2012, the petitioner filed an Appeal before the 1st respondent. However, the 1st respondent directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the Board of Governors. Accordingly, he filed an appeal before the Board of Governors but no order has been passed. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.34617 of 2012 seeking a writ of mandamus to dispose his appeal. Consequent to the direction given by this Court, his representation was considered but rejected on 24.11.2020 by the 2nd respondent.

4. M/s. V.S. Manimekalai, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similarly placed persons like the petitioner are given the benefit of General Provident Fund Scheme [GPF] but the petitioner was not allowed to switch over to GPF-cum-Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not aware of the rejection of his earlier request dated 24.11.2020 and he came to know the rejection order only consequent to his RTI application. The petitioner's appointment in the year 1995 is a new appointment with new scale of pay and hence his earlier option in favour of CPF ought not to have been treated as his option in the new appointment also.

5. Mr. A.R.L. Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the Ministry of Personnel and Training vide Office Memorandum in OM.No.F.3(1)-Pension Unit/85, dated 06.06.1985 called for the Central Government Employees, who were in service as on 31.03.1985 to exercise their option and to opt for either the CPF Scheme or the Pension Scheme.

6. It is made clear in the Office Memorandum dated 06.06.1985 that the option should be exercised within a period of 6 months from the date of the said Office Memorandum and on failure to exercise the option would be presumed as an option to continue under the CPF Scheme. Since the petitioner did not exercise the option and stick to his earlier option on continuing the CPF Scheme, he is not entitled to conversion once again to GPF especially after getting the settlement done as per the CPF Scheme.

7. The petitioner who had initial appointment as Lecturer in the NITTTR had sent his request to admit him under CPF contribution from the month of Ma