Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
P A Sasidharan vs D/O Atomic Energy on 15 November, 2022
1 OA 1240/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA NO.1240/2019
Dated Tuesday, the 15th day of November, Two Thousand Twenty Two
CORUM: HON'BLE MR. T.JACOB, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
&
HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
P.A.Sasidharan,
S/o Sankaran,
No.44, Kumudam, DAE Township,
Anupuram Post, Kancheepuram 603 127 ...Applicant
By Advocate M/s T.N.Sugesh
Vs.
1.Union of India, rep., by the Secretary,
Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India,
Anushakthi Bhavan, CSM Marg, Mumbai 400 001
2.The Director,
Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR),
Department of Atomic Energy, Kalpakkam,
Kancheepuram 603 102
3.The Under Secretary,
Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions,
Government of India, 3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan,
Khan Market, New Delhi 110 003.
4.The Director, Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare,
3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi 110 003.
5.The Administrative Officer,
Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR),
Department of Atomic Energy, Kalpakkam,
Kancheepuram 603 102. ...Respondents
By Advocate Mr. Su.Srinivasan
2 OA 1240/2019
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) By this OA, the applicant is seeking the following relief:
"To call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 5th respondent in Order No.7/1/20/2018-Admn(L)/109 dated 07.05.2019 and the order of the 2 nd respondent in Ref No. IGCAR/IC No.5160/Admin[O&M]/2017/1810 dated 22.03.2017 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to permit the applicant to switch over from the existing Contributory Provident Scheme (CPF) to the Pension Scheme, namely, General Provident Scheme (GPF) and grant him all consequential benefits and thus render justice.."
2. This is the fifth round of litigation. The applicant along with others has filed OA 577/2010 before this Tribunal wherein this Tribunal by order dated 19.01.2011 directed the respondents to follow the decision in WP No.29371/2008 pending before the Hon'ble Madras High Court. Thereafter the applicant along with others filed WP No.21569/2013 challenging the order dated 19.01.2011 in OA 577/2010 wherein the Hon'ble High court directed the respondents 1 & 2 to examine the case of each petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the observations made therein above, if they were otherwise eligible for the same. Thereafter against the rejection order dated 02.06.2015, the applicant again filed OA 91/2017 wherein this Tribunal by order dated 27.10.2017 directed the respondents to consider and pass a speaking order on the applicant's representation dated 14.10.2015. The 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 22.03.2017 rejecting the applicant's claim which was challenged by the applicant in OA 779/2017. However, he sought the same to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh OA along with all relevant information, and vide order dated 11.06.2018 this Tribunal allowed the applicant to withdraw the said OA with liberty to file a fresh OA and accordingly the applicant has filed 3 OA 1240/2019 OA 1401/2018 wherein he has sought a direction from this Tribunal that his claim has to be examined with identically placed A.M.Baskaran accordingly and the said OA was disposed of on 03.12.2018. In compliance of the said direction of this Tribunal dated 03.12.2018 in OA 1401/2018, the respondents have considered all the issues and after verifying the facts, passed order dated 07.05.2019 stating that the applicant and A.M.Baskaran are not similarly placed therefore the applicant cannot claim parity and rejected the claim of the applicant accordingly. Being aggrieved the applicant has filed the present OA.
3. The brief facts of the case in nutshell are as under:
The applicant was appointed in the respondent institution to the post of Draughtsman 'A' in Technical Category on 07.03.1989 when the CPF scheme was in operation. He earned further promotions as Draughtsman 'B', Draughtsman 'C', Draughtsman 'D', Draughtsman 'E' & Technical Supervisor 'A'. The applicant had put in 33 years of unblemished service. The applicant submits that at the time of his confirmation in service, he had exercised an option to retain the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) benefits. By OM dated 12.10.1992, the 3rd respondent allowed change over from CPG to GPF in terms of a uniformed policy for Scientific and Technical personnel under which the applicant derived a right to exercise the option of moving over from CPF to GPF within 20 years of qualifying service from the date of entering service. However, the OM was withdrawn by a subsequent OM dated 23.07.1996 with respect to persons who had joined service before 01.08.1992, thereby depriving the applicant of such option. Thereafter, the Department of Atomic Energy by an OM dated October 12, 2000 decided to extend one more final option to all the Technical Personnel of the department 4 OA 1240/2019 who had joined prior to 01.08.1992 and had not completed 20 years of service and were still under CPF to move over to the pension scheme as a special case. The option had to be exercised within a period of six months from the date of issue of the OM. The grievance of the applicant is that the OM of the 1st respondent dated 12.10.2000 was never brought to the notice of the applicant and several other persons in his category as a result of which, they could not exercise the option within the prescribed time limit of six months. Later, in the year 2006 & 2007 when the applicant sought to move over to the pension scheme in terms of the aforesaid OM, the respondents passed the order dated 05.02.2008 stating that there was no provision to consider the applicant's request from change over from CPF to GPF and there was no second option available in this regard. Thereafter as stated in the above para, the applicant along with others has filed several OAs before this Tribunal and WP before the Hon'ble High court. While so, the Department of Atomic Energy had submitted a proposal to the Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare on 11.07.2016 recommending favourable consideration of the request of similarly situated persons like the applicant.
The Committee headed by Special Secretary/Additional Secretary, which looked into the issue thoroughly and examined the representations received in the Department from the staff federation and a number of individuals, had clearly concluded that the persons who had not exercised their option were not aware of the OM dated 12.10.2000 for reasons of posting in remote areas or otherwise and therefore their request deserve to be considered sympathetically. However, the 3rd respondent without proper application of mind on the recommendations of the Committee, rejected the recommendations by an OM dated 25.01.2017. The applicant contended that the decision of the respondents was discriminatory in the light of such 5 OA 1240/2019 option allegedly allowed for persons coming under the scientific category without any time restriction and those who moved from technical to scientific stream on promotion within a time limit of 20 years. Such discrimination is not permissible being violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. On his confirmation in service, the applicant had exercised the option to retain the CPF benefits. While submitting his case the applicant has relied upon the OM issued by the respondent office with regard to switching over the options from CPF to Pension vice versa issued on 17.04.1964, 17.01.1967, 31.07.1992, 12.10.1992, 23.07.1996, 12.10.2000, 08.05.2006 & 04.10.2007. The applicant also contended that in respect of Technical & Scientific Personnel relevant OMs are 1992, 1996 & 2000 provided for exercise of option for switch over from CPF Scheme to GPF Scheme subject to condition stipulated therein. According to OM dated 12.10.2000 the option has to be exercised within six months from the date of the said OM along with other conditions as prescribed. The applicant has placed his reliance upon the order passed by the Hon'ble High court of Madras wherein direction has been given to the respondent to consider the cases of the applicants therein for switching over the options. The applicant has pleaded that though the respondents have considered the claim of one Mr.O.Ponniah, Mr.A.M.Baskaran who are similarly situated however they have rejected the claim of the applicant which is a clear act of discrimination, arbitrary and contrary to the law. Moreover, no notice or intimation was served individually as the respondents have not made aware about the above said OM widely. In the said circumstances, the rejection orders passed by the respondents is illegal, unreasonable and needs to be quashed and set aside with a direction to permit the applicant to switch over from the existing Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to the General Provident Fund Scheme 6 OA 1240/2019 and for granting all the consequential benefits. It is also contended that in spite of the recommendation made by the Committee, the applicant's case has not been considered. Hence, it is necessary to issue directions to the respondents to consider his case at par with similarly situated persons whose cases have been considered relaxing the time limit. In support of his contention, the applicant has relied upon the following judgments:
(i)Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Ors Vs. Bachan Singh dated 30.07.2009 (2009) 14 SCC 793.
(ii)Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of Smt.Shashi Kiran & Ors. Vs. UOR & Ors dated 24.08.2016
4. After notice the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel and filed their counter and refuted all the allegations made by the applicant in the OA opposed the relief claimed by the applicant. The respondents have submitted that the applicant on his confirmation with full knowledge had specifically exercised his option in the year 10.06.1991 opted to retain CPF with a statement indicating clearly that he had taken concise decision to opt for CPF scheme "after having understood the comparative advantages and disadvantages of CPF (non-pensionable scheme) and GPF".
The respondents have also submitted that in the matter of Shri O.Ponniah and Shri A.M.Baskaran they are not similarly placed because they are from the scientific wing and because of their work profile Shri O.Ponniah in his option form dated 23.08.1993 stated that he will exercise the option before completion of 20 years of qualifying service and he has not submitted option either to continue in CPF or switch over to GPF. Also the clause regarding the option to retain CPF or to switch over to GPF within 20 years of qualifying 7 OA 1240/2019 service who have joined after 01.08.1992 has been withdrawn by OM dated 23.07.1996. Accordingly OM dated 10.12.1992 was withdrawn. On 23.07.1996, DP&PW issued another OM thereby providing an option to retain CPF or to switch over to GPF within 20 years of qualifying service to those Government servants who have joined after 01.08.1992. Vide this OM, earlier OM dated 12.10.1992 was withdrawn and status quo ante was restored in respect of those who had joined before 01.08.1992 like Shri O.Ponniah. Thus in the case of Shri O.Ponniah, the option submitted by him earlier on 23.08.1993 became infructuous on account of issuance of DP&PW OM dated 23.07.1992. Therefore, an order was issued by BARC Facilities on 03.10.2012 to the effect that in terms of OM dated 17.01.1961, Shri O.Ponniah was deemed to have opted for pension w.e.f the date of his confirmation, i.e., 20.04.1993. The case of the applicant and that of Shri O.Ponniah are entirely different. In the case of Shri A.M.Baskaran he has filed OA 1390/2016 praying to switch over from the existing CPF to GPF. He was an employee of another R&D unit of DAE namely BARC and not an employee in the establishment of the 2nd respondent. Besides, the said OM dated 12/10/2000 had inadvertently not been circulated among the employees posted in the workplace/Division where Shri A.M.Baskaran was working and therefore Shri A.M.Baskaran could not exercise his option and thus he was placed in an disadvantageous position. Hence an opportunity was ordered to be extended to him, relaxing the time limits. The case of the applicant, is therefore, distinct from that of Shri A.M.Baskaran as the OM dated 12/10/2000, was circulated among all the employees in the establishment of 2nd respondent's wherein the applicant worked and in pursuance to the said OM, 85 employees of IGCAR had opted for conversion from CPF to Pension Scheme. The respondents have also contended that the 8 OA 1240/2019 submission made by the applicant as well as one of the grounds which is raised by the applicant that the OM dated 12.10.2000 was not brought to the notice of the employees is not acceptable because the same has been displayed on notice board in the office of the applicant thereby 85 employees from the same office where the applicant was working have exercised their option pursuant to the said OM. The applicant has chosen not to exercise his option as he has already opted for CPF which is beneficial to him. To support the said contention the respondents have placed their reliance upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors in Appeal (Civil) No.7351 of 2000 that "It is settled Principle of Law that a man cannot be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of his own wrong to gain favourable interpretation of law. Thus the maxim Nullus Commodum Capere Potest de injuria sua propia squarely applies to the present case. The respondents have also contended that as the applicant is harping upon the other so-called similar persons, namely Shri Y.B.S.R.Prasad, N.S.Banerjee and A.M.Kakre, those employees were all scientific officers who were ruled by different instructions. Scientific officers were allowed to exercise their option once any time before retirement. Therefore the applicant is not similarly situated with those officers/employees. In support of their contentions, the respondents have relied upon the following judgments:-
(i)Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishena Kumar Vs. UOI CDJ 1990 SC 798.
(ii)Order of this Tribunal in OA No.212/2008 dated 08.05.2008 upheld by the Hon'ble High court of Madras in WP 29371/2008 in order dated 02.11.2011 and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA 9 OA 1240/2019 No.26212/2012 in order dated 18.10.2013.
(iii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala Vs. Mangal Singh & Ors in C.A.No.4405/2011, dated 12.05.2011
(iv)Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA 7148/2008 dated 13.11.2013 in the matter of Calcutta Port Trust & Ors Vs. Anadi Kumar Das & Anr
(v)Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 7483/2014 in the matter of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd Vs. Dwarka Prasad Koolwal & Ors dated 07.08.2014
(vi)Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No.3842/2011 in the matter of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors dated 03.01.2017
(vii)Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP 6747/2014 along with other connected matters in the matter of Rajiv Raizada Vs. UOI & Ors dated 05.07.2021
5. Heard both the counsels and perused the OA along with relevant records.
6. We have examined the facts of the case placed before us and considered the submissions advanced by both sides. It seems that time and again against the direction issued by the Hon'ble High court, the issue pertaining to exercise of option for switching over from CPF to GPF have been considered by the respondents. The proposal regarding one more option to change over from CPF to GPF scheme in respect of technical employees who joined prior to 01.08.1992 like the applicant has been initiated by the Head 10 OA 1240/2019 Personnel Division by letter dated 03.07.2006. The same has been re-
examined by the department and has not been approved as the last chance to come over to Pension scheme was given to the technical employees, vide OM dated 12.10.2000 which was to be exercised within six months from the date of the said OM. It is also to be seen that the proposal has been initiated in respect of technical personnel of BARC who had joined service prior to 01.08.1992 and not specifically opted to continue in CPF the same has been re-examined by the BARC Personnel Division and confirmed that since no option was exercised by them on confirmation they are automatically deemed to have been opted to Pension scheme on confirmation by virtue of the provisions of the OM dated 17.01.1961. The respondent competent authority has reconsidered the issue upon recommendations from the committee in respect of transfer of 393 CPF holders to change over to GPF scheme. While considering the said cases, the respondent competent authority,i.e., DP&PW has considered the recommendations dated 11.06/07.2016 of respondents no. 2 & 3 and the financial implications involved at the time of implementation in consultation with the Department of Expenditure also noted that all those employees had opted for CPF Scheme on the basis of OM issued by the department knowing well that the option once exercised shall be final. While considering the same it has been stated that all new entrants to the Government service w.e.f 01.01.2004 are also no longer covered by the Old Pension scheme. The proposal of Department of Atomic Energy has been examined in consultation with Department of Expenditure and has been agreed to on 25.01.2017. It is also to be noted that with regard to the employees of the scientific wing who had not exercised their option it is because that the said circular dated 12.10.2000 had not been brought to their notice. Therefore by an 11 OA 1240/2019 administrative decision no objection has been issued for the said Shri A.M.Baskaran to switch over from CPF to GPF Scheme and that too in line with the recommendation of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. It is to be noted that the applicant who has exercised his option in the year 1991 had taken a conscious decision to opt for the CPF scheme and the same is not in dispute. It is also to be noted that against the direction of this Tribunal dated 10.10.2018 issued in OA 1352/2018, the respondents have passed a detailed speaking and reasoned order dated 09.01.2019 considering all the points raised by the applicant. While passing the said speaking order, it is also mentioned that the said OM dated 12.10.2000 was circulated to all the employees vide circular dated 01.11.2000. The OM was given wide publicity in the IGCAR by displaying on all notice boards and also with copies being endorsed to all Group Directors/Associate Directors/Head of Division/Head of Section and recognised associations. It is also mentioned that in response to the said OM, a total number of 85 technical employees of the particular centre where the applicant was working have exercised their options to switch over from CPF scheme to GPF scheme. However, the applicant had failed to exercise his option to switch over from CPF scheme to GPF scheme as a result continued to remain under the CPF scheme. It is also to be noted that for the first time in the year 2006, the applicant has raised his claim vide his representation dated 01.11.2006. A perusal of the said representation goes to show that in contrary to his submission in the OA that the OM dated 12.10.2000 was not served on individual employees, the applicant has stated in his representation that in the year 2000, the Department had put a circular stating that non pensioners (CPF) can opt for pension scheme (GPF) and when he applied and opted his willingness to switch over from CPF to GPF but the Government denied him the option on 12 OA 1240/2019 the ground that he had put in more than 15 years of service and also as a non-gazetted person, he was not eligible to switch over. But he has neither mentioned specifically the date of submission of his option nor produced the copy of the option submitted by him and the reply given by the department denying the same. The applicant himself has admitted that some of the employees have approached this Tribunal whose cases has been rejected and thereafter subsequently when they have challenged the order passed by this Tribunal before the Hon'ble High court in WP wherein being a policy decision, the Hon'ble High court has given only directions to consider the case of the petitioners therein which has been considered by the respondent department and the same has been rejected. With regard to the claim of the applicant at par with Mr.O.Ponniah, Mr.A.M.Baskaran and others, as they are not similarly placed like the applicant, there is no question of parity. It is also to be noted that when the said speaking order dated 09.01.2019 has been challenged by the applicant in the present OA, para V of the said speaking order has not been specifically disputed except the statement that no notice or intimation was served individually. Para V of the order dated 09.01.2019 is extracted hereunder:
"DAE, in consultation with DP&PW, extended one more final option to all technical personnel in the Department who had joined service prior to 01.08.1992 and had not completed 20 years of service and still in CPF scheme to come over to Pension Scheme as a "Special Case", vide OM No.2/1/99/SCS/665, dated 12.10.2000. The option was to be exercised within a period of 6 months from the date of issue of the OM i.e., on or before 11/04/2001. The said DAE OM was circulated to all employees of IGCAR vide circular No.IGCAR/CPF/P1/2000 dated 01.11.2000. The OM was given wide publicity in IGCAR by displaying on all Notice Boards and also with copies being endorsed to all Group Directors/Associate Directors/Heads of Division/Heads of Section and Recognised Associations. In response, a total of 85 Technical employees of this Centre exercised their options to switch over from CPF scheme to Pensions scheme. However, Shri Chandrasekaran failed to exercise his option to switch over from CPF scheme to Pensions scheme and as a result continued to remain under the CPF scheme."13 OA 1240/2019
It is to be stated that the said OM dated 12.10.2000 in which the option has to be exercised within a period of six months, i.e., on or before 11.04.2000, the applicant has raised his objection in the year 2006. Therefore, the applicant cannot have a claim after over a period of 6 years of delay. It is also to be noted that in the matter of policy decision wherein financial implications are involved, it is for the employee concerned to raise his right over the said claim in time. The applicant has relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Ors Vs. Bachan Singh dated 30.07.2009 wherein the facts are not similar and the ratio is also not same. In the said case, the circular stating that after regularization of the employee, the service rendered by him on work-charged basis would not be counted for the pensionary purposes has not been made aware to the employee. Therefore after retirement he has made the correspondence and since there is no response filed a writ petition and knocked the doors of the Hon'ble High court for justice. Considering all the aspect and since the department has failed to prove that they have given knowledge about the said circular to the employee, an opportunity has been granted to opt for the said option accordingly. The applicant has also relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High court in the matter of Smt.Shashi Kiran & Ors. Vs. UOR & Ors dated 24.08.2016. Here also the facts and ratio is altogether different. It is to be noted that all the employees have approached the court at the earliest. While allowing the claim of the employees the court has also considered that when benefit of the said particular OM referred in that matter has been extended too all other staff members/employees in their institutions. Therefore looking to the peculiar 14 OA 1240/2019 facts and circumstances in that particular matter, we find that the same is not applicable in the case of the applicant herein.
7. It is observed that according to the judgment relied upon by the learned SCGSC Mr.Su.Srinivasan, i.e., the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishena Kumar Vs. UOI CDJ 1990 SC 798, the Hon'ble Apex court has declined to issue any directions in the matter of expenditure includible in the Annual Financial Statement. Similar issue in respect of the claim of the applicant relates to OM dated 10.12.2000 against the same department this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No.212/2008, vide order dated 08.05.2008 have observed that "When the rules do not provide this court cannot exercise a discretionary powers to direct the respondents to accept the option exercise by the applicant and grant the benefits to him". The said order has been challenged by the applicant in WP 29371/2008 before the Hon'ble High court of Madras and the Hon'ble High court vide order dated 02.11.2011 upheld the order of this Tribunal. The said order has been tested by the applicant therein before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No.26212/2012. While dismissing the SLP by its order dated 18.10.2013, the Hon'ble Apex court upheld the order passed by this Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble High court. It is also to be noted that in the matter of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala Vs. Mangal Singh & Ors in C.A.No.4405/2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 12.05.2011 considered the delay in respect of raising the claim over the availability of option. It has been held that a person who is aware of the availability of the option cannot contend that he was not served a written notice of the availability of the option after 22 years. Therefore the failure on the part of the employee to opt for the pension scheme in time will disentitle him from claiming any benefit under the Pension scheme. It is also held by 15 OA 1240/2019 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 13.11.2013 passed in CA 7148/2008 in the matter of Calcutta Port Trust & Ors Vs. Anadi Kumar Das & Anr that since the employee has not pleaded that he was not aware about the said OM itself against which he is claiming the benefit and that being the position it is not possible to accept the plea of the employee that he had not been served with the OM. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 7483/2014 in the matter of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd Vs. Dwarka Prasad Koolwal & Ors vide its order dated 07.08.2014 has held thus:
68. The right of an employee to switch over was, therefore, limited in time by the Pension and GPF Regulations. However, administrative orders issued by the RSEB from time to time extended the period for exercising the option. No employee had any inherent right to either demand an extension of the period for exercising the switch-over option or claim a right to exercise the switch-over option at any time prior to his retirement, and no such right has been shown to us.
69. But, learned counsel for the respondents finally submitted that pension is not a charity or a bounty and an employee is entitled to earn his pension. There can be no doubt about this proposition but when two schemes are available to an employee, one being the CPF Scheme and the other being the Pension Scheme, it is for the employee to choose the scheme that he feels more comfortable with and appropriate for his purposes. No employee can switch over back and forth from one scheme to another as per his convenience. Once an employee has chosen to be a part of a particular scheme, he continues to remain a member of that scheme unless an option to switch over to another scheme is given to him.
70. Insofar as the present appeals are concerned, the respondents who are members of the CPF Scheme were given several opportunities of switching over to the Pension Scheme and the GPF Scheme under the Pension Regulations and the GPF Regulations respectively but they chose not to do so. The question whether under these circumstances pension is a bounty or a charity becomes completely irrelevant.
The entitlement to pension was available to the respondents but they chose not to avail the entitlement for reasons personal to them. Having taken a decision in this regard the respondents cannot now raise an argument of pension not being a bounty and therefore requiring the RSEB to give them another option to switch over to the Pension and GPF Regulations It is also to be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by their order dated 03.01.2017 in CA No.3842/2011 in the matter of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors has 16 OA 1240/2019 held as under:
23. In view of the above, it is well settled that the notice inviting option need not to be personally served to the employees unless the Regulation or any instruction so provides. The Regulations 1992 which are being considered in the present case had already been interpreted in PEPSU Road Transport Corporation vs. Mangal Singh as noticed above. This Court having already held that Regulations 1992 do not contemplate any personal service of notice to employees the finding in the judgment of the courts below holding otherwise for decreeing the suit of the plaintiff are unsustainable. From the facts of the present case it is clear that although Regulations were in force from 1992, plaintiff retired on 30th November, 2011 and after retirement received CPF benefits without any protest and at no point of time before retirement he has raised any grievance. The benefit which was available to him under CPF scheme was received by the plaintiff, he cannot be allowed to another benefit flowing from the pension scheme which he never opted. Extending benefit of the pension scheme to the plaintiff shall be extending double benefits- CPF benefit as well as pension scheme which was never contemplated by the Regulations. In any view of the matter, the issue in the present case is covered by the judgment in PEPSU Road Transport Corporation vs. Mangal Singh (supra) and we do not propose to take any different view in the matter. Learned counsel for the respondents has also contended that in so far as the outstanding amount of CPF is concerned the said amount could have been deducted by virtue of Regulation 24 and which amount is to be adjusted against death- cum-retirement gratuity. In the present case the plaintiff having not opted for pension scheme, the requirement from refunding the advance taken from CPF within six months is not attracted. More so, in the present case as has been stated by the appellant in the written statement in the suit even after retirement an amount of Rs.4999/- was due from the advance taken by the respondents from his CPF amount.
It is also to be noted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP 6747/2014 along with other connected matters in the matter of Rajiv Raizada Vs. UOI & Ors vide order dated 05.07.2021 has held as under:
"101/14.4 Having regard to these crucial facts, the Supreme Court reversed the view both of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court since the petitioner had failed to exercise his option for switch over within the time accorded in that behalf by the applicable scheme."
8. Admittedly the issue involved in the matter has attained finality against the employee and the order passed by this Tribunal in OA 212/2008 dated 08.05.2008 in one of the employees case P.Sundaramurthy who is similar to 17 OA 1240/2019 the applicant has attained finality since the said order has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, we are of the considered view that it is a policy matter and the same has been already considered by this Tribunal and attained finality. Hence in view of the said position as well as on delay and latches, the applicant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Lata Baswaraj Patne) (T. Jacob) Member (J) 15.11.2022 Member (A) MT