Option to retain CPF exercised within DAE-extended deadline valid; no deeming to pension; claim barred by delay and acquiescence.

ORDER

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

By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief(s):-

“….In view of the above facts and circumstances the applicant herein prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Ref:NFC/Estt-II/2842/75/2017/2789 dated 27.11.2017 and quash and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the statutory rules on the subject matter, CCS (Pension) Rules, the orders of the Department of Pensioner and Pensioners Welfare on the subject matter issued from time to time and consequently declare that the applicant shall be treated as deemed to have opted for pension and pensionary benefits under CCS Pension Rules and not under CPF with all consequential 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 was initially appointed as LDC, vide order, dt. 26.10.1978 in NFC, Hyderabad and he joined the said post on 01.11.1978. Subsequently, he was appointed as Junior Stenographer against circular dt. 27.12.1978 and he joined the said post w.e.f. 19.09.1980 and he was confirmed in the said post w.e.f. 01.04.1985, vide order, dt. 18.06.1987. The applicant submits that since the posts of LDC/ Junior Stenographer are permanent and pensionable posts, he was deemed to have opted for being covered under the CCS (Pension) Rules. The applicant also did not exercise his option to continue in CPF Scheme, within three months i.e., on or before 30.09.1987, as required under the OM issued by the Government of India. Therefore, as per the deeming provision, he has to be covered under pension scheme.

ii) The applicant submitted his representation on 13.03.2014 seeking to treat him as being covered under Pension Scheme, which did not evoke any response. Therefore, the applicant once again represented on 23.08.2017 for change over from CPF to GPF (Pension Scheme), as the respondents continued him under CPF Scheme, and he was due to retire on 30.04.2019. The respondents have rejected the applicant’s claim, vide impugned order, dt. 27.11.2017. Hence, the applicant filed the OA.

iii) It is the contention of the applicant that the impugned order is a not a reasoned order. The applicant procured certain information under the RTI Act, vide letter, dt. 04.04.2019, as per which, he contends that, incorrect information was placed before the competent authority. It is also his 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. The applicant further submits that options were taken and recorded in the service book against the DAE OM dt. 23.09.1987 i.e. after the cut off date of three months on confirmation. 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 conclusion reached by the administration in the notings as if the applicant had opted to retain in CPF, on confirmation, is incorrect. As as result, the applicant has been denied the right to be treated to be covered under CCS (Pension) Rules.

3 (i) Upon notices, the respondents filed reply statement, wherein, the factual aspects of the matter, as stated by the applicant, are not much in dispute.

(ii) It is submitted by the respondents that the applicant, on his appointment a