IMPORTANT POINT
Employees have the right to switch from CPF to GPF cum Pension Scheme if they applied before retirement, as established by precedent.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.

Heard Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Bal Mukund, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents.

2. Petitioners before this Court are erstwhile faculty members of Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra, a Central Government Organisation controlled and funded by it through its own sets of rules and by-laws framed with the approval of Government of India. While petitioner No. 1 had already retired by the time present petition was presented before this Court on 30.11.2015, the other two petitioners were working and ultimately retired on 30.6.2019, during pendency of the writ petition.

3. All the three petitioners claim a writ in the nature of mandamus to command the respondents including Union of India to award them benefit of the Old Pension Scheme popularly known as G.P.F. Scheme by permitting them to opt for G.P.F. cum Pension Scheme (In short G.P.F. Scheme) in view of the subsequent orders issued by the Delhi University with the consent of Central Government, to permit the employees having C.P.F. Scheme to switch over to G.P.F. Scheme as late as in the year 2003. During the pendency of this petition, a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Kiran v. Union of India, 2016 SCC Online 4819, intervened as per which even those employees of such institutions who had already opted for C.P.F. Scheme and were not permitted to switch to G.P.F. Scheme on the principle that they could not gaze into the crystal ball the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme, and to speculate whether the existing state of affairs would continue especially the rate of interest that one would get on the accumulated fund as compared to benefits given to the pension optees at the stage of superannuation. Petitioner herein claim to be the last category of petitioners as came to be mentioned in paragraph 23 of the judgment who had opted for C.P.F. benefits.

4. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners' application remained pending consideration before the authorities since 2013 i.e. prior to their date of superannuation and even if the higher authorities of the Government of India refused to consider that application on the plea that there was no further option available in the year 1999, after 31.12.2003 now they can be benefited under the judgment of the Supreme Court as they were the third category of the petitioners who were similarly circumstanced.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, Sri Bal Mukund has argued, firstly that petitioners having attained the age of superannuation were no more the employees of the institute and, therefore, there is no question of giving them any option to switch over as this option could be exercised by working employees only; and secondly act and conduct in opting for C.P.F. scheme was a result of a conscious decision by the petitioners and they having not chosen to opt for C.P.F. Scheme prior to 30.9.1989 when the last opportunity was given by the Central Government, there was no question now to reopen the option in favour of retired employees. Meeting the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Kiran (supra), Sri Bal Mukund has argued that judgment would operate in personem and not in rem. He has argued that judgment having been delivered in particular cases that were being pursued in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court extended the benefit even to the third category of such employees approaching it and these appeals arose out of the said judgment of the Delhi High Court, whereas in the present case petitioners have chosen to approach this Court much after the expiry of last date to exercise option in the year 2003 made by the Delhi University. He submits, as far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he himself had opted to retire and take post retirement benefit as per the C.P.F. Scheme even prior to filing of his present petition. Sri Bal Mukund has also not denied the resolution of Board of Governors on date as was in