Under Odisha University Statute 289, failure to opt within stipulated time leads to automatic selection of Pension Scheme, overriding previous choices.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Mohapatra, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Senapati, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties and Mr. A.R. Mishra, learned counsel for the O.P. Nos.3 & 4. Perused the pleadings of the parties as well as documents annexed thereto.

2. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why appropriate writ/writs shall not be issued directing them to allow the petitioner to change his option from CPF to Pension Scheme in view of the Statute-289 and the Syndicate decision dtd.30.08.1997 and The Odisha Universities Employees’ Pension Fund (Administration) Rules, 2012 within a stipulated time and on perusal of causes shown if any or upon insufficient causes shown, make the said rule absolute and may pass any appropriate order as deemed just and proper.”

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Odisha University First Statute, 1990 was introduced for the first time in the year 1990 and in view of Rule 288 of the said Rules, the employees retiring on or after the 1^st April, 1990 shall be entitled either to the benefit of the pension scheme as applicable to the State Govt. employees as amended from time to time or to the benefits of the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) of the University in the event the employee concerned opts for the same. Statute 289 (1) provides that the existing employees who have not already exercised their option under the First Statute shall exercise their option in writing either for the pension scheme or for the Contributory Provident Fund under Statute 288 within a period of six months from the date the first statute of the university came into force.

4. It was also contended by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the employees recruited thereafter to the University service shall exercise their option either for the pension (GPF) or for Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme within six months from the date of their appointment. Drawing attention to the Statute 289(3), learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the same provides if any employee fails to exercise the option as required under the aforesaid statute within the prescribed time limit, the employee shall be deemed to have opted for the pension scheme. Thus, it was argued before this Court that in the event the employee fails to opt for the CPF Scheme it will be presumed the employee has opted for the pension scheme and accordingly his claims shall be processed.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture also contended that so far the present petitioner is concerned it is his admitted case that he has not opted for either the CPF or GPF Scheme within the stipulated period of time i.e. from 01.01.1990 to 30.06.1990. In the said context, learned counsel for the Petitioner refers to the letter of the Berhampur University dated 22.03.2016 under Annexure-14 which has been obtained under the provisions of the RTI Act.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Berhampur University, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner had opted for CPF Scheme on 18.04.1989 prior to the university first statute came into force in the year 1990. He further submitted that on the basis of such exercise option by the petitioner, the university had already processed the files and the petitioner was kept under the CPF Scheme. The