Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. In the above said circumstances, these petitioners felt that they had been unjustly discriminated against in the matter of extension of benefits of the GPF scheme. As stated above, for all purposes the petitioners were treated as government servants of Puducherry and were covered by the CCS Pension Rules,1972 and in that circumstances, being aggrieved by denial of the GPF benefit, they represented to the Government to bring them under the GPF scheme which was the only scheme that was in vogue during the time they were recruited. These petitioners were also appeared to have not been given any option to remain with the CPF in the face of the then existing GPF scheme.

15. According to these writ petitioners, they had come across several judgments on the issue of conversion from CPF to GPF and consistently the http://www.judis.nic.in Courts have held in favour of the employees' contention that during the relevant time, the GPF scheme was the norm and the CPF was an exception and only on the basis of specific option to be exercised by the concerned employee to remain in CPF scheme, the GPF benefits stood excluded. A detailed representation has been made on 06.05.2019 enclosing the relevant ratio laid down by the Courts in their favour. However, the 5th respondent in response to the representation of the petitioners, issued proceedings dated 18.11.2019 rejecting the request of the petitioners for bringing them under the GPF scheme. According to the rejection order, the request of the petitioners cannot be acceded to as it was specifically stipulated in the appointment order that they were governed by the Contributory Pension Rules (India) 1962 as decided by the governing body of the society. Thus being aggrieved by the rejection of the claim, the petitioners are before this Court.

16. Mr.V.Vijay Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has at the outset reiterated the above facts. He would then proceed to submit that the reasons set forth in the impugned order for rejection of the http://www.judis.nic.in petitioners' claim cannot be countenanced both in law and on facts, as there was no CPF scheme in place at all at the time when the these petitioners were appointed in 2001. The only scheme available at that point of time, was the GPF scheme. Therefore, these petitioners ought to have been brought under the GPF scheme automatically by the 2nd respondent society. As regards the stipulation in the appointment letter about the application of the CPF scheme to these petitioners, the learned counsel would submit that when the appointments were given to them, these petitioners had no choice except to accept the same, but that did not mean that their rights could be surrendered abjectly in the face of the mandatory application of the GPF scheme which alone was in vogue at the time when these writ petitioners were appointed.

17. The learned counsel would emphasize the fact that when Office Memorandum was issued on 01.05.1987 pursuant to the implementation of the recommendation of the IVth Pay Commission, it clarified the position without any doubt that continuation with CPF scheme was only on the basis of specific option to be exercised by the employee and all other employees http://www.judis.nic.in stood automatically switched over to the GPF scheme, which meant that there was no option needed to be exercised for being brought under the GPF scheme. By virtue of the said mandatory stipulation, these petitioners ought to have been brought under the GPF Scheme originally at the time of their appointment. In any case, when they were appointed, there was no option sought from them in regard to their subscription to CPF scheme.