Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The OA is filed challenging the action of the respondents in continuing the applicant in Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (in short `CPF Scheme') instead of General Provident Fund Scheme (in short, GPF Scheme).

3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant joined respondents' organization on contract basis as Research Associate on 12.11.1984 and he has opted for CPF Scheme in 1985. Thereafter, applicant was appointed as direct recruit as Assistant Director in 1992 against a regular post. The appointment letter made it clear that he is entitled for GPF Scheme. Applicant on 08.08.2011 represented to the respondents to bring him under the GPF Scheme by citing the relevant Bye-law, bearing the number 52. Thereafter, applicant was promoted on contract basis as Deputy Director on 10.08.1999. While promoting him to the said post, it was stated in the appointment letter that "considering that he is a regular officer of the institute as Assistant Director, he is permitted to continue to contribute to the GPF during the contract appointment in accordance with the provisions contained in the GPF rules of the Institute". Applicant made several representations bringing it to the notice of the respondents, the rules under which he is eligible for GPF Scheme. There being no favourable response, OA has been filed.

4. The contentions of the applicant are that similarly situated faculty members were extended the benefit of GPF Scheme whereas the applicant was denied. The faculty members, who were recruited after 30.09.1987, are required to be governed by the GPF Scheme since CPF Scheme was no more in force.

5. Respondents, in their reply statement, opposed the contentions of the applicant by claiming that no specific order was issued by the respondents for filing the OA. Applicant voluntarily opted for CPF and made the contributions. The filing of the application is time barred and that the applicant after availing all the benefits under CPF, seeking option for GPF after retirement, is only an afterthought. Respondents rejected the contention of the applicant that he is automatically eligible to be covered under GPF. Further, they pointed out that when the applicant was appointed as direct recruit as Assistant Director in 1992 against the regular post, he was entitled for GPF, yet he continued to contribute for CPF without raising any objection. Respondents accordingly made their matching contribution to CPF. As the issue was not raised at that instant of time, the matter should be treated as final and applicant under the cover of the representations made from 2011 seeking to exercise GPF option should be rejected. Between 1992 and 2011, 19 years have passed which is too long a time for the applicant to have opted for GPF. It is true that the applicant made a representation on 8.8.2011 requesting to bring him under GPF citing Para 52, Section (4) of Chapter IX of Service Bye-Laws, but the said provision does not apply to the case of the applicant since he opted for CPF. The request of the applicant was also taken up with the concerned Ministry but it was turned down. Even after getting the appointment as Deputy Director, applicant continued under CPF. As Deputy Director, he is eligible to contribute for CPF if he has not opted for GPF. The contention of the applicant that he has been discriminated in contrast to other faculty members is not true. There are certain employees in the respondents organization, who were appointed directly and have opted for GPF, for which they are eligible. Hence, comparing with such employees is incorrect. Though the CPF Scheme was withdrawn in 1989, since the applicant contributed to the said scheme, he was allowed to do so. The relief sought by the applicant is not maintainable under law since he has enjoyed the benefits of CPF by contributing to the Scheme till he retired. Applicant retired on 31.1.2017 and on his retirement, he has been paid eligible amount along with management contribution of the CPF. Applicant was paid Rs.35,55,789/- vide Cheque No.793440, dated 13.2.2017.

"From the above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the entire daily wage service of the petitioner from 1988 till the date of his regularization is to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. He will be deemed to be in govt. service prior to 1.1.2004. The new Re-structured Defined Contribution Pension Scheme (Annexure P-1) has been introduced for the new entrants in the Punjab Government Service w.e.f. 01.01.2004, will not be applicable to the petitioner. The amendment made vide Annexure P-2 amending the Punjab Civil Services Rules, cannot be further amended by issuing clarification/instructions dated 30.5.2008 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner will continue to be governed by the GPF Scheme and is held entitled to receive pensionary benefits as applicable to the employees recruited in the Punjab Govt. Services prior to 1.1.2004. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Accordingly respondents are directed to treat the whole period of work charge service as qualified service for pension because accordingly to clarification issued on 30.5.2008 (Annexure P-3), the new defined Contributory Pension Scheme would be applicable to all those employees who have been working prior to 1.1.2004 but have been regularized thereafter. Let his pension and arrears be calculated and paid to him expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order."

(VI) Hence, as can be seen from the observations of the Tribunal and of the Hon'ble High Court of Telengana, the applicant is fully eligible to opt for GPF in the instant case. It was negated though the policy provides for such provision. Hence, the respondents are directed as under:

(a) to permit the applicant to come under GPF Scheme from the date he is eligible.
(b) the applicant shall refund the total management contribution towards CPF Scheme from the date he has become eligible to GPF as per the extant rules for GPF Scheme along with interest at prevailing GPF rate.