An employee's voluntary choice of a Provident Fund scheme is irrevocable, and one cannot seek later changes after long acquiescence, reaffirmed by binding precedent.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition assails the order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad, in O.A.No.726 of 2017, 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 switch over from the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme to the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension (for short, ‘GPF-cum-Pension’) Scheme after his retirement.

2. Heard Sri P.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner; Sri N.B.Sudarshan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.3. Perused the record.

Factual Matrix (in brief)

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

i. The petitioner joined the 1st respondent-Institute i.e., National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (NIRDPR) as a Research Associate on a contract basis on 17.11.1984. Petitioner’s services were regularized w.e.f. 17.03.1985 vide Office Order No. 379 dated 07.11.1985. Petitioner retired as a professor on attaining superannuation on 31.10.2017.

ii. The 1^st respondent-Institute introduced the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme w.e.f., 01.04.1985 vide Office Order No.54 dated 01.05.1985, which provided that employees holding posts on a contract basis as on 01.04.1985 would continue under the CPF Scheme; however, upon regularization, they were given an option either to opt for the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme or to continue under the CPF Scheme.

iii. The petitioner exercised his first option on 30.06.1985, opting to continue under the CPF Scheme. A second opportunity was provided vide Office Order No. 332 dated 11.08.1987, pursuant to the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission. Accordingly, the petitioner again opted for CPF on 30.09.1987.

iv. For nearly three decades, the petitioner contributed to and drew benefits under the CPF Scheme without demur. In June 2016 and April 2017, just prior to his retirement, he made representations seeking migration to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme, which were rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 02.08.2017. The petitioner filed the O.A. before the Tribunal aggrieved by the action of respondent No.1 in rejecting the petitioner’s representation. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the entire material on record, dismissed his O.A. by order dated 20.02.2024.

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

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon the petitioner’s regularization w.e.f. 17.03.1985, his service conditions became governed by the NIRD Service Bye-laws; that Bye-law 52(3) stipulates that an employee appointed on a regular basis is eligible only for the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme and that in the absence of a valid option exercised within three months from the date of regularization, the employee is deemed to have opted for the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, no valid option was exercised by the petitioner in 1985 after regularization and, therefore, he stood automatically governed by the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme by operation of law.

5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the option allegedly exercised by the petitioner in the year 1987 pursuant to Office Order No.332, dated 11.08.1987 i