Option to retain CPF exercised within departmentally extended deadline valid; deeming switch to pension applies only absent affirmative choice; belated claims barred by delay, laches, acquiescence, estoppel.

ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Dr.Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member)

By this Original Application, the applicant has sought the following relief:-

“….In view of the above facts and circumstances the applicant herein prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to declare the action of the respondents in continuing the applicant under Contributory Provident Fund Scheme instead of considering her under the General Provident Fund Scheme and thereby denying her entitlement for Pension under CCS (Pension) Rules as contrary to the DOPT OM dated 01.05.1987 bringing them under the GPF Scheme and the judgments of various Tribunals/ Courts on the subject matter and as such illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and rules on the subject matter and is against the principles of natural justice and consequently declare that the applicant is entitled for the benefit of pension and pensionary benefits, in the interest of justice and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Facts of the case are that:

i) The Applicant joined in the NFC, Hyderabad on 11.08.1982 as Lower Division Clerk and subsequently, she was appointed as Upper Divisional Clerk in 1992 and further promoted as Senior Clerk in 2018. She was due for retirement on superannuation on 28.02.2019.

ii) The applicant submits that the Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare (DP & PW), vide OM dt. 01.05.1987 called for options from all Central Government employees, who were in CPF Scheme, to change over to the Pension Scheme on implementation of the IV CPC recommendations. In the said OM, it is clearly indicated that all CPF beneficiaries, who were in service as on 01.01.1986 and continue to be in service as on the date of the said OM i.e. 01.05.1987, would be deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme unless they specifically opt to continue under CPF Scheme on or before 30.09.1987. It is also submitted by the applicant if no specific option is given before the said date, they are deemed to have automatically come under the Pension Scheme.

iii) The specific case of the applicant is that she did not exercise her option before 30.09.1987 and therefore, she has to be deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme. Further, the DAE issued OM dt.23.09.1987 extending the last date for exercising the option, as envisaged under DP & PW OM dt. 01.05.1987, till 30.12.1987 and she opted for CPF during this extended period. The applicant submitted a representation on 26.06.2013 seeking to treat her as being covered under Pension Scheme, which did not evoke any response. Hence, the applicant filed the OA.

iii) The contention of the applicant is that in the information furnished under the Right to Information Act, it was stated by the DP & PW that the power to extend the date for submission of options was not delegated to any authority. Therefore, the DAE OM dt. 23.09.1987 lacks authority and it is an illegal order and deserves to be quashed. It is also her contention that similarly situated persons were granted the benefit of the deeming clause of the DOP & PW OM dt. 01.05.1987, vide the NFC order, dt. 12.12.2014. Therefore, such an option, if any exercised by the applicant, after the cut off date of 30.09.1987, has no legal sanctity in the eyes of law. Hence, the applicant has to be deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme under CCS (Pension) Rules. The applicant also cited certain precedents in support of her case.

3 (i). Upon notices, the respondents filed reply statem