Back
2010 Supreme(All) 81
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S.P. MEHROTRA AND K.N. PANDEY, JJ.
RISHI JI SRIVASTAVA
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 06 January 2010
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 71649 of 2009
Pankaj Saxena, Vivek Prakash Mishra,
Entitlement to retirement benefits based on the interpretation of government orders and previous court decisions.
Headnote:
GPF Scheme - Retirement Benefits - 25. 8. 1999, 5/6. 5. 2000 - The court discussed the Government Orders permitting teachers to switch from CPF to GPF with pension, and the interpretation of these orders. The court referred to previous decisions and held that the petitioner, who exercised the option in accordance with the 25. 8. 1999 order, is entitled to the benefit of the GPF Scheme with Pension. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the government orders and previous judgments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a teacher, sought the benefit of the GPF plus Pension Scheme in accordance with the Government order dated 25. 8. 1999 and various court decisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, who exercised the option in accordance with the 25. 8. 1999 order, is entitled to the benefit of the GPF Scheme with Pension.
Issues: Interpretation of Government Orders, Entitlement to GPF Scheme with Pension
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner, who exercised the option in accordance with the 25. 8. 1999 order, is entitled to the benefit of the GPF Scheme with Pension.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition is allowed, and the respondents are directed to give benefit of the Government Order dated 25th August, 1999 in terms of the option exercised by the petitioner within three months.
( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the controversy involved in the present Writ Petition is covered by the earlier decisions of this Court, referred to hereinafter in the present Judgment, and therefore, the present Writ petition may be decided at this stage itself.
( 3 ) A supplementary affidavit has been filed today on behalf of the petitioner.
( 4 ) LET the same be taken on record.
( 5 ) AS per the averments made in the Writ Petition and the supplementary affidavit, the petitioner is working on the post of Reader in the Department of chemistry in Sri Murli Manohar Town Post Graduate College, Ballia. The date of birth of the petitioner is 23. 1. 1952, and he is due to retire on 30. 6. 2014.
( 6 ) IT appears that initially the petitioner opted for Contributory Provident Fund scheme (CPF ). However, by the Option Letter dated 15. 10. 2007 (Annexure 12 to the Writ Petition), the petitioner sought to change his option from Contributory provident Fund Scheme (CPF) to General Provident Fund Scheme (GPF) with pension. The said Option Letter was submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the government Order dated 25. 8. 1999 (Annexure 5 to the Writ Petition ).
( 7 ) IT is, interalia, prayed in the Writ Petition that writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to accord the benefit of gpf plus Pension Scheme to the petitioner in accordance with the Government order dated 25. 8. 1999, and various decisions of this Court.
( 8 ) FACTS relevant for deciding the present Writ Petition are as under.
( 9 ) THE State Government from time to time has issued Government Orders permitting the teachers to exercise their options for switching over from Contributory provident Fund Scheme (CPF) to General Provident Fund Scheme (GPF) with pension.
( 10 ) THE last such Government Order was issued on 25. 8. 1999 (Annexure 5 to the Writ Petition) which permitted the teachers to exercise their options before one year of their retirement. However, by the Government Order dated 5/6. 5. 2000 (Annexure 6 to the Writ Petition), a clarification was issued that option could be exercised only by such teachers, who were governed under the General Provident fund Scheme and not under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.
( 11 ) IT appears that this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25140 of 2001 (Dr. Shri Gopal Gupta and others v. State of U. P and others) considered the aforesaid Government Orders dated 25. 8. 1999 and 5/6. 5. 2000, and held by the judgment and Order dated 26th October, 2006 as follows :
". . . The policy of the Government providing benefit of GPF plus pension scheme at no point of time denied the benefits to those teachers who had not opted for the said scheme prior to 25th August, 1999 or during the period prescribed either in the Government Order of 1980 or 1982. Since the scheme remained in existence and time for giving option was extended from time to time, the interpretation given by the State to the aforesaid Government order dated 25th August, 1999 and the clarifications dated 5th June, 2000 and 12th july, 2000 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The petitioners who had applied/opted for GPF plus pension scheme though they were covered under the CPF scheme, one year before their date of retirement i. e. during the extended period as per the Government Order dated 25th August, 1999 could not have been refused the said benefit on the ground that the aforesaid scheme/option was open only for those teachers who are covered by the GPF scheme. . . . . . . . "
( 12 ) COPY of the said Judgment and Order dated 26th October, 2006 has been filed as Annexure 8 to the Writ Petition.
( 13 ) IT further appears that the State Government filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court being Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C
