The High Court · 2025

:1 0F Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to No''.'U..*,'.O."j-it-t"O bvthe suspend the Order Dated 20-02-2024 Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, and direct the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to switch over from contributory Provident Fund Scheme to General provident Fund-:cum- Pension Scheme in accordance with the piovisions under the Service Bye- laws 4g, 4g and 52(3) of the 1st Respondent lnstitute, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition' 'n ?'A' :-:,,---.- _Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l and 2: SREBHARA-TIY.A SUDARSHAN (sG roR NIRD AND PR) GounselfortheRespondentNo'3:SRINJHU^JANGARAO' DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER --4rii-.#ffi .- ,t- *. ,rirr-+ .!r r! tr il rrt' '- IN THE HIGH @I'RT TOR THE STATE OF TEIIINGANA AT ITYDERABAD TI{E HOTfBIETIIE CIIIEf,' JI'S"TICE SRI APARESIH KT'IT4AR SINGH AI{D TIIE HONtsIT SRI JI'SIICE G.TIJIOHIT'DDIN utRIT PEIITION No.2lt834 of 2U24 DATE: 16.L2.2925 Between: Y. Gangi Reddy Director General, National Institute of Rural Development.and Panchayat Rqi and 2 others. AND Petitioner ...Respondents ORDER This Writ Petition assails the order dated 2O.O2.2O24 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), I-Iyderabad, in O.A.No.726 of 2OL7, whereby the Tribunal dismissed thc Original Application (for short, 'O.A.J filed by the petitioner. Thc petitioner had liled tl.e subject O.A. seeking a direction to switctr over from the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Sckrcrne to thc General Provident Fund-cum-Pension {for short, 'GPF-cum- Pension') Scheme after his retirement.

2. Heard Sri P.Venkatesh, learrned counsel for the rvrit petitioner; Sri N.B.Sudarshan, learned counsel for respondent 2 Nos.1 and 2; and Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India f<rr respondent No.3. Perused the record. Factual Matrix

3. The factual background, necessarJr for the adjudication of the present writ petition, is as follows: i. The petitioner joined the lst respondent-Institute i.e., National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (NIRDPR) as a Research Associate on a contract basis on 17.tL 1984. Petitioner's services were. re$llarize-d w.e.f. 17.03.1985 uide Offrce Order No. 379 aatea 07.11.1985. Petitioner rctired as a professor on attaining superannuation on 3 1 .lO.2Ol7. ii. The lst respondent-Institute introduced the GPF-cum- Pension Scheme w.e.f., 01.O4.1985 uide Offtce Order No.54 dated 01.05.1985, which provided that employees holding posLs on a contract basis as on 01.04.1985 would continue under the CPF Scheme; however, upon tegalaizatron, they were given an option either to opt for tlle GPF-cum-Pension Scheme or to continue under the CPF Scheme. iii. The pctitioner exercised his first option on 30.06.1985, opting to continue und.er the CPF Scheme. A second opportunity was provided uide Offrce Order No. 332 dated I 1.08. 1987 , pursuant to the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission. Accordingly, the petitioner again opted for CPF on 30.09. L987. iv. For nearly three decades, the petitioner contributed to and drew benefits under the CPF Scheme without demur. In June 2016 and April 2017, just prior to his retirement, he made representations seeking migration to the GPF-cum- 3 Pension Scheme, which wefe rejected by the respondents uide letter dated O2.O8.2OL7. The petitioner filed the O.A. before the Tribunal aggrieved by the action of respondent No.1 in rejecting the petitioner's representation. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the entire material on record, dismissed his O.A. by order dated 2O.O2.2O24. v Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the Tribunal's order. Contentions on be of the oetitioner

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon the petitioner's regularization w.e.f., 17.Og.1985, his service conditions became governed by the NIRD Service Bye-laws; that Bye-law 52(3) stipulates that an empl,oyee appointed on a regular basis is eligible only for the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme and that in the absence of a valid option exercised within three months from the date of regularization, the employee is deemed to have opted for the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, no valid option was exercised by the petitioner in 1985 after regularization and, therefore, he stood automatically governed by the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme by operation of law.

5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the option allegedly exercised by the petitioner in the year 1987 purs.Eant to Office Order No.332, dated I 1.O8. L987 d---* / l : I 1 I I I I 4 is illegal and without authorit5r, as the petitioner was already deemed to be under the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme, and no fresh option could have been sought thereafter. Further, the cut-off date of 3O.09. Lg87 was applied selectively and that similarly situated employees were permitted to migrate to the pension scheme even after the cut-off date, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

6. It is further submitted that due to successive Pay Commission revisions, the disparity between CPF and GPF-cum: Pension benelits has widened substantially, and denial of the pensionary benelits to the petitioner at this stage is unjust, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 2l of the Constitution.

7. The learned counsel fcrr the petitioner has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Delhi High Court in LPA No.410 of 201a and batctt, dated 24.O8.2OL6, to contend that a substantial change in linancial benefits can justify grant of a fresh option. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to distinguish the decisions relied upon by the respondents, including Dr.S.Venkatadrt a. tlnion of India and. others, and Dr.K.Suman Chand.ra. u. (Inion of Indlaz, contending that the I sLe 1c; No. r 8044 of 20ti . dt.29.08.20 re 2 o.A.No.as of 2ot7 dr. I 5.07.20 r9 "aa b 5 factual matrix therein is different and not applicable to the present case. / Contentions on behalf of the respondents

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, in unison, : contended as under: i. That the petitioner, a highly qualified academic, consciously and voluntarily exercised his option to continue under the CPF Scheme, not once but twice i.e., first in the year 1985 and again in 1987. The option forms duly signed by the petitioner are on record. It is submltted that the petitioner continued under the CPF Scheme for nearly three decades, contributed thereto, and availed its benefits without any protest whatsoever. ii. That as per the policy adopted by the Institute, an option once exercised is final and irrevocable. Office Order No.332 dated 11.08. lg87 specifically stipulated such finalit5r, and the petitioner cannot be permitted to resile:f1om his choice after an inordinate delay, particularly on the eve of retrrement. iii. That the petitioner's case is governed by Bye-law 52(4) and not Bye-law 52(3), as the petitironer was initially appointed on a contract basis. Upon regularizati<on, he was given a clear option between CPF and GPF-cr.lm-Pension, which he validly exercised. The deemed option clause, it is argued, applies only where no option is exercised, which is not the case here iv. Respondents placed reliance on the judgment in Dr.S. Venkatadri (supra 1) of the Honble Suphnoe Court, 6 wherein an identically placed employee of the very same Institute, appointed on contract in 1984, regulari-ed in 1985, and having opted for CPF in 1985 and 1987, was denied similar relief of migration from CPF to GPF cum Pension Scheme. It is pointed out that the said judgment has attained linality upon dismissal of the review and curative petitions and squarely governs the present case. v. The respondents denying allegation of discrimination submit that no similarly situated employee was permitted to switch schemes after the cut-off date. Reliance is placed on official records and communications of the Ministry reaffirming the linality of the option exercised vi. That thq petitioner's prolonged acquiescence for over 30 years attracts the principles of delay, estoppel, and waiver, and that the writ petition is a belated attempt motivated solely by the prospect of enhanced retirement benefits. g. We have given our anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides. Analvsis and Reasoning

10. The core issue that arises for determination is whether the petitioner, having consciously and voluntarily opted for the CPF Scheme in the years t985 and 1987, can seek a belated conversion to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme after nearly three decades and subsequent to retirement? 7 ApplicabiliW of the service Bye-laws and validitrr of tlhe option exercised

11. It is pertinent to note that a plain and harmonious reading / of the Service Bye-laws governing the Institute assumes significance. Bye-law 52{41 contemplates a situation where an employee initially appointed on contract is subsequently absorbed on a regular basis and grants such employee an option to choose between the CPF Scheme and the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme. The proviso thereto stipulates that only in.the :event of non-exercise of such option, the employee shall be deemed to have come over to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme. l To appreciate the relevant Bye-law applicable to the petitioner, it is apposite to extract Bye-law 52 of the Bye-traws hereunder:

52. Application and eliaibilit! of the sclrcmes : (a) Persons appointed after the date of commenement of the schemes under bge-lanas 48 and 49. 1) A person appointed on contract under Serube bge-laut 2(2) shall be eligible to be gouerned onlg bg tlre Contibutorg 2) A person initiallg appointed on contract under Bge-law 12 to a post refened to in Bge-lata 3(a) shall be eligibte to be governed bg the Contributory Prouident FUnd *teme under bye-law 50, for the period lrc lalds the appointmefi on contract (vide sub-clause 4). 3) A person appointed to a post otherwise than on antract shall be eligible to be gouemed only by the Pension-cam- Gratuity-cam-Fanily Pension Sctrcme referred to in bge- lqw 48 and the General Prouident Fund *leme referred to in bye-law 49. 4) An employee of the category refened to in sub-e)antse (2) shall, on ltis appointment on a regular basis in tte post 'Ir \ 8 held bg him or ang otter post urtder bge-laut 72, hnue tlte option to elect either. i. the Pension-anm-Grahitg'anm-Familg Pen"sion Scleme refened to in bge-laut 48 and tle Generat Prouident Fund. Scheme refened to in bge-law 49 or ii. to continue to be the gouerned by tlrc Contributory Prouident Filnd Sclrcme refened to in bge-laut 50. Prouided that he shnll exercise and ammunimte his option in uiting to the Registrar and Accounts Officer, within three montls of the date of tle order appointing him on a regular basis, and if he is on leaue on tlnt date within ttvee months from the date of his retum from leaue, and tlrc option so exercised shall be final. Prouided further thnt if a person does not ommunimte his option in ttrc manner aforesaid, he shalt be deemed to haue elected the Pension'cum- Grattitg-cttm-Familg Pension Scleme and the General houident Flutd Scleme. Where a person elects or is deemed to lnue elected tle Pension-anm-Gratuitg - anm- Family I'ensio n Scheme 'and the General Provident Fund Scheme, trc shall forego the Instififie's contribution to his contibutory Prouident Fund account together with interest thereon" ulhich slull be paid back to the Institute, and shall thereupon be entitled to count towards pension the serube rendered bg him prior to his appointment on a regular basis fo the ertent permissible under the Pension-anm-Gratuitg -cum-Familg Pension Rules of tle Instifute, and the accumulated balance of hrs subscriptions in the Fund together with interest thereon standing to his credit shall be transfened to his Generai Provident Fund Account.

12. In the present case, the factual position is undisputed. The petitioner did not remain silent. On the contrary, he expressly exercised his option on 30.06.1985, striking off the GPF option and electing to continue under the CPF Scheme. Consequently, the cOncept of a "deemed option" under the proviso never arose. The petitioner's case is thus not one of statutory Iiction, but of a conscious and affirmative choice. 9 I I I i i I

13. Further, the petitioner for more than three decades, accepted CPF deductions, received the employer's contribution, and raised no objection whatsoever. Such long and unbroken / acquiescence attracts the doctrine of estoppel, disentitling hirn from questioning the very scheme which he willingly embraced. L4. It is to be noted that the Office Order No.332 of L987 extended a second, benevolent opportunity to employees already under CPF to switch over to the Pension Scheme. Even at this stage, the petitioner once again opted to continue under CPF, thereby reaffirming his earlier decision. The contention advanced by the petitioner that the Lg87 option is void on the premise that he was already deerned to be under GPF is legally untenablg, for the very foundation of such plea collapses in light of the explicit option exercised in 1985. Having validly remained under CPF, the second option was lawfully offered and lawfully exercised. Bindins nature of the decision in Dr. S. Venkatadri's case

15. It is to be noted that the issue raised is no longer res integra. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. S. Venkatadri (Supra 1) squarely governs the lield and binds this Court by virtue of Article l4l of the Constitution of India. The factual matrix in the said case is strikingly identical aS there was an appointment on contract, regularisation, exercise of option in 1985 and again in 1987 in favour of CPF, and a betated lsr \ l0 claim for switchover at the fag end of service. The Apex Court, after noticing the categorical stand taken by the employer regarding voluntary exercise of option and the absence of any denial thereto, declined to interfere. The dismissal of the Review Petition and Curative Petition further cements the linatity of the legal principle enunciated therein.

16. In the present case, the petitioner's atternpt to distinguish the said judgment is unconvincing. The ratio laid down therein that a conscious and voluntary option exercised decades earlier cannot be unse.ttled at the threshold of retirement; applies with full force to the facts of the present case. Alleeation of Arbitrariness and Violation of Article t4

17. It is to be noted that the plea of discrimination under Article L4 of the Constitution is devoid of substance. The respondents have placed material demonstrating uniform treatment of all employees who opted for CPF. The petitioner has failed to place any concrete evidence to show' that persons similarly situated, namely those who had consciously opted for CPF on more than one occasion, were permitted to switchover subsequently.

18. The prescription of a cut-off date, namely 30.09.L987, emanates from a policy decision of the Government of India, which was duly adopted by the lst respondent-Institute. It is trite / ( law that fixation of a cut-off date in service matters is a matter of policy and does not warrant judicial interference unless shown to be palpably arbitrary or irrational.

19. The petitioner's argument on subsequent financial disadvantage, though appealing on equitable considerations, cannot override the principle of linality attached to a voluntary option exercised by an employee with open eyes. Subsequent improvements in pensionary benefits do not confer a vested right to reopen settled service conditions.

20.. It is also to. be noted that the Delhi High Court Judgment in LPA No.41O of 2OL4 and batch, dated 24.08.2016 relied upon by the petitioner pertains to employees governed by a distinct statutory and regulatory framework applicable to Dethi University. It neither interprets the Bye-laws governing the present Institute nor dilutes the binding t:ffect of the Supreme Court's decision in Dr. Venkatadri (supra l). Consequently, the said Judgment does not advance the case of the petitioner. Conclusion

21. This Court is of the considered vievv that the Tribunal has meticulously analysed the facts, correctly interpreted the applicable Bye-laws and rightly placed reliance on binding precedent. The conclusion that the petitioner, having consciously \ \ t2 opted for cPF, cannot seek conversion after an inordinate lapse of time, is legally sound.

22. In this regard, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the impugned order dated 2o.o2.2o24 does not suffer from perversiry, illegality, or Jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2g. Accordingly, the writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed / P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER One CC to :Sri PolaliVenkatesh, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri bharatiya sudarshan (SC FOR NIRD AND PR) IOPUCI One CC to Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia[OpUC] : Two CD Copies 1 2 3 4 To, TJ BS 9z HIGH COURT DATED i1611212025 ORDER WP.No.248,3;4 of 2024 : J : s:,..,,r. *i,-.i:.1riir .ri:, . ; --. .,.*:...: .1. i *, ;* +r::; . .... , .. DISMISSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT GOSTS THE S 0 I F[8 ?tl20 . -- {*-'!*#s-ii.qi;-at_.a_ rir_.t;rF- --- @ * e ro "\-q.