Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(2 of 7) [CW-12906/2014] For the first time on 12.12.2011 the petitioner applied to the Department for allotment of GPF Account Number on the premise that as his appointment in the year 1993 was a fresh appointment, he ought to have been governed by the GPF Scheme and the GPF Pension Rules of 1989 which were applicable to the fresh employees at that point of time. Vide the said application the petitioner gave his option for shifting him in the GPF Scheme from the CPF Scheme.

It is the case of the petitioner that he was not required to furnish his option at any point of time as in terms of the Regulations of 1988, he was to be governed by the GPF Scheme ipso facto.

(3 of 7) [CW-12906/2014] Reply to the petition has been filed by the RSEB (now JVVNL/RVPNL) as well as the State.

It has been averred by the respondents that during the complete tenure of service the petitioner never availed the option to shift from CPF Scheme to GPF Scheme which was granted to the employees time and again vide general notices dated 19.05.1990, 17.09.1991, 27.01.1993, 08.05.1995, 22.08.1995, 04.02.1997 and 12.03.1999.

So far as the term "option" is concerned, it specifically talks of a written consent of the "existing" regular employee for Pensionary and Gratuity benefits. It is not in dispute that vide the above-mentioned notices, all the employees of the Board were granted an opportunity to exercise their option of change from CPF to GPF Scheme or GPF to CPF Scheme, if they so desired.

Even after the appointment of the petitioner in the year 1993 as a Junior Engineer, such option was granted in the year 1995 (5 of 7) [CW-12906/2014] also but admittedly the petitioner did not exercise any such option ever. The petitioner was well aware of the fact that he is a member of the CPF Scheme and this fact remains undisputed that post-retirement he has also availed the CPF benefits.

Hon'ble Apex Court further held as under:

"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.