UNION OF INDIA Vs. S L VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent Nos. 1 to 13 were employees of Bureau of Indian Standards. The said authority was created under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986. Although a statutory authority, it is said to be under the administrative control of Ministry of Consumer Affairs. Respondent Nos. 1 to 13 were members of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPF Scheme). The respondent No. 14 i.e., the Bureau of Indian Standards, which is an Autonomous Body, pursuant to and in furtherance of an Office Memorandum dated 1.5.1987 Issued by the Government of India asked its employees to give their option whether to continue under the Provident Fund Scheme or not. The said Office Memorandum dated 2.5.1987 assumes importance in view of the language used therein to which we intend to immediately advert to. The Office Memorandum is prefaced with calling for repeated options in the past asking the employees to switch over to the pension scheme. It was mentioned that such option had been asked for on 6.6.1985. The Central Government notices that despite the same, some of the employees still continued in the CPF Scheme. It further notices the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission to the effect that CPF beneficiaries in service on 1.1.1986 would be deemed to have switched over to the pension scheme on that date unless they specifically opt out to continue under the CPF Scheme. It is not in dispute that the said recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission had been accepted by the Central Government and the same is applicable to the employees of the respondent No. 14. Bureau of Indian Standards. Paragraph 3 and paragraph 3.2 of the said Office Memorandum read as under:

(2.) Pursuant to and in furtherance of the said Scheme of the Central Government, the respondent No. 14 made a Regulation known as "Bureau of Indian Standards (Terms and Condition of Service of Employees Regulation, 1988)", Regulation 16 thereof reads as under:

(3.) Despite the clear intent and purport of the said Office Memorandum dated 1.5.19S7, the respondent Nos. 1 to 13 herein continued to be treated as if they had still been continuing under the CPF Scheme. The Central Government as also the respondent No. 14. Bureau of Indian Standards have proceeded on some legal misconception that it was obligatory on the part of the said employees to give a positive option for the said purpose. For the first time on 2.2.1999, the respondent No. 14 requested the Union of India for grant of another chance to the respondents to switch over to pension scheme stating that they purported to have exercised their option for CPF Scheme on the cut off date.