M L KHULLAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule D.B.An order, dated 14 July 1999, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in OA No.492/1998 forms the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed petitioner's original application seeking a direction to the respondents to permit him to changeover from State Railway Provident Fund (in short 'SRPF') to the pension scheme, introduced vide Railway Board's letter dated 22 July 1974 and further extended in terms of their letter dated 4 October 1982.

(2.) The background, in which the petition has come to be filed, is as follows:

(3.) The petition is resisted by the respondents. In the affidavit-in-opposition, it is averred that the petitioner having retired on 31 July 1982, the present petition seeking to reopen the issue already settled as far back as in 1982 is time barred and, therefore, liable to be dismissed. It is pleaded that after 18 years of his retirement, the petitioner is now seeking to segregate himself from the broad class of SRPF retirees, whose claims for belated option for pension scheme have already been rejected by the Supreme Court in the case of Krishena Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1990 SC 1782. It is urged that the petitioner cannot be given an exceptional treatment in violation of the terms of the scheme. As regards the claim of parity with the case of DRR Shastri, it is stated that the facts of that case are conspicuously different from that of the petitioner, inasmuch as Shastri being away on deputation to the Heavy Engineering Corporation, he could not exercise the option. It is also pointed out that insofar as the Board is concerned, Shastri's request for retrospective switching over to pension scheme was rejected but he got relief on the intervention of the Tribunal and the Supreme Court. However, without indicating any distinguishing feature, it is stated that the case of Kasturirangan is also on a different footing and cannot be treated as a precedent. It is maintained that Railway Board's letters were communicated to all the General Managers with the direction that these should be brought to the notice of all the retired Railway servants. However, the reply is silent on the question as to what steps were taken by the General Managers in this behalf. Finally it is asserted that all the relevant aspects having been gone into by the Tribunal, and its view being in line with the ratio of the decision of Apex Court in Krishena Kumar's case (supra), the writ petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.