IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.4555 of 2026 DATE: 24.02.2026 BETWEEN:

P.Nageshwar Rao and 4 others ….Petitioners AND Union of India and 3 others ….Respondents

ORDER

Heard Ms.N.Shoba, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

“……to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents setting aside the orders dt.06-02-2025 received by the Petitioner on 23-09-2025 passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal in dismissing the O.A./021/0031/2024 contrary to the facts and law laid by the Apex Court and to declare the action of the 2nd and 4th respondent in not considering representations on 03-08-2023 and 21-09-2023 for extending the benefits as deemed Pensioners as they did not exercise any option in cut off date and denying their entitlement of pension under C.C.S. (pension) Rules and not applying the Judgment passed by the Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench passed in Batch of cases dt.31-03-2015 and as confirmed by the Division Bench High Court of Judicature Madras in Batch of Writ Petitioners No.28092 to 28094 of 2015, dt.05-01-2017 and as confirmed by the Supreme Court in SLA (C).No.28825, 28827 of 2015, dt. 14-02-2023 and not extending the benefit to Petitioners as arbitrary, illegal, without application of mind and discriminatory and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

Factual background (in brief)

3. The petitioners were appointed in the Nuclear Fuel Complex, an establishment under the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), in Technical Category posts between the years 1970 and 1974. The material particulars relating to their entry into service, promotional progression and superannuation, as borne out by the record placed before the Tribunal are as follows:

4. It is not in dispute that at the time of their initial appointment, all the petitioners were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme, which was then applicable to the employees of the DAE.

5. By Office Memorandum No.37/55/63-T.II(A)/TE, dated 17.01.1967, the DAE declared permanent technical posts as pensionable and extended an option to the incumbents, upon confirmation, either to continue under the CPF Scheme or to opt for pensionary benefits in terms of Rule 38 of the Contributory Provident Fund Rules, 1962 (for short, ‘1962 Rules’). The said Memorandum stipulated that such option was required to be exercised within three months from the date of confirmation, failing which the employee would be deemed to have opted for the pension scheme.

6. The service records indicate that the petitioners exercised their option in the following manner:

i) Petitioner No.1 exercised option on 23.08.1976 to retain CPF benefits.

ii) Petitioner No.2 did not exercise any option within the extended period granted under the special option dated 01.09.1991; consequently, as recorded in his service book, he was deemed to have retained CPF benefits.

iii) Petitioner No.3 exercised option on 04.08.1976 to retain CPF benefits.

iv) Petitioner No.4 exercised option on 31.08.1976 to retain CPF benefits.

v) Petitioner No.5 exercised option on 24.10.1980 to retain CPF benefits.

7. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding, on the basis of the service books and departmental communications, that the petitioners had consciously and positively elected to remain under the CPF Scheme.

8. Following the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission, the Government of India issued Office Memorandum No. 4/1/87-PIC-I dated 01.05.1987, providing that CPF beneficiaries in service as on 01.01.1986 would be deemed to have come over