A court will not issue a Mandamus to compel an employer to permit a change in pension benefit schemes after a valid, time-bound policy has lapsed, particularly where the claimant failed to exercise their option during their service, as such a claim is barred by the doctrine of laches.

Judgment :

Amrita Sinha, J.

1. The order dated 2nd May, 2025, passed by the Executive Director, Damodar Valley Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘DVC’) rejecting the prayer of the petitioners to switch over from the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPF’) to the General Provident Fund Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘GPF’) is impugned in the instant writ petition.

2. The petitioners are all retired employees of DVC. Their date of retirement ranges between 2008 and 2020. During their service tenure all the employees of DVC were given opportunity to exercise their option, either to continue with CPF or to switch over to GPF scheme. The petitioners did not exercise their option to join the GPF scheme. After their superannuation they received all the terminal dues as per their choice. No objection was raised by any of the petitioners alleging that the terminal dues which they received were not in accordance with the option exercised by them.

3. On 22^nd October, 2020, DVC published an Office Memorandum seeking option from the existing employees of DVC for conversion from CPF to GPF scheme. The last date for exercising option in terms of the aforesaid memorandum was 21^st January, 2021.

4. On 23^rd June, 2022, the petitioners made a legal representation requesting the authority to permit them to switch over from CPF to GPF scheme. Their prayer not being considered by the authority, the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court being WPA No - 492 of 2023 which was considered and disposed of by the Court on 7th February, 2023 directing the Executive Director (HRD), DVC, to consider the representation made on behalf of the petitioners within a stipulated time period. The authority complied with the Court’s order and passed a reasoned order which is impugned herein.

5. The petitioners allege that the Court formulated a guideline according to which the authority ought to have considered the prayer of the petitioners. The authority could not have digressed from the manner in which the Court directed consideration. The ground on which the prayer of the petitioners has been rejected was not open to the authority. The Court did not give an open hand to the authority for consideration of their prayer, rather streamlined the mode of consideration.

6. It has been submitted that the authority was directed to restrict the benefits to be granted to the petitioners entitling them to switch over from CPF to the GPF scheme for a period of three years prior to the date of filing the writ petition. The Court upon hearing both the parties opined that the prayer of the petitioners for switching over may be allowed provided the petitioners restrict their claim for a period of three years prior to filing the writ petition. The Court never directed the authority to revisit the entire issue of switching over once again.

7. The respondent authority illegally and arbitrarily acted as an appellate forum of the order passed by the Hon’ble Court. The authority ought not to have distinguished the manner of application of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and others versus Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648. The authority ought to have made the calculation of the amount which the petitioners would be required to refund for sw