A conscious choice made by an employee to remain in a provident fund scheme cannot be rescinded decades later, especially when supported by contemporaneous evidence and the principle of estoppel applies.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition assails the order dated 12.06.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘CAT’), Hyderabad, in O.A.No.21/1485/2015, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application (for short ‘O.A’) filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had filed the subject O.A. seeking a direction to be covered under the pension scheme instead of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme, contending that under the Office Memorandum (O.M) dated 01.05.1987 she was deemed to have come over/switched to the pension scheme as per 4^th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations, as she never exercised any option to remain in CPF before 30.09.1987.

2. Heard Sri K.Ram Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri B.Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General of India on behalf of Sri N Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondents and perused the record.

Factual Matrix (in brief)

3. The factual background, necessary for the adjudication of the present writ petition, is as follows:

i) Smt.T Girija Manik (for short ‘writ petitioner’) joined the service in the year 1981 and was confirmed in 1986 and has explicitly opted for the CPF scheme.

ii) Following the 4th Central Pay Commission, the Government of India issued an Office Memorandum on 01.05.1987, stating that all CPF beneficiaries in service as of 01.05.1987 would be deemed to have come over to the pension scheme, unless they exercised a positive option to retain CPF by 30.09.1987.

iii) The petitioner claims that since she did not submit a written option to continue in the CPF by the deadline, she must be automatically deemed to have switched over to the pension scheme. However, the respondents contend that the petitioner’s service book contains an entry, made post-deadline, stating she "opted to retain CPF," and that she continued to contribute to and receive benefits from the CPF account until her superannuation.

iv) The petitioner claims to have made several representations to the respondents to bring her under the pension scheme which were rejected. She filed an O.A. before the CAT, Hyderabad, which was dismissed. The CAT relied on a precedent where it held that employees who consciously enjoyed CPF benefits cannot be allowed belatedly to seek switch over from CPF scheme to pension scheme.

v) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the Tribunal’s order.

Contentions on behalf of the petitioner

i) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, in terms of the O.M. dated 01.05.1987, a statutory deeming fiction was created whereby all CPF beneficiaries in service as on the date of issuance of the O.M. would automatically stand brought under the pension scheme unless they expressly opted to continue under the CPF before 30.09.1987. Since the petitioner did not submit any written option retaining the CPF Scheme within the prescribed period, the petitioner asserts that by operation of the said deeming provision, the petitioner has to be treated as having come over to the pension scheme.

ii) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present case is squarely covered by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) Nos.28825-28827/2017 arising from the Madras High Court in Union of India v. S. Subbaiah and others ,W.P.Nos.28092 of 2015 and batch dated 05.01.2017 where similarly situated employees in the Department of Atomic Energy were granted the benefit of the pension scheme.

iii) The learned counsel contends that the action of the respondents is arbitrary and violativ