A K SHARMA Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the employees of School of Planning and Architecture (respondent No. 2 ). They have filed the present writ petition for grant of following prayers:- (i) A Writ of Certiorari quashing the resolution of Executive Committee dated 24. 4. 1998 (Annexure P-4) of Respondent School and letters dated 26. 3. 1999 and 18. 1. 2000 (Annexure P-5) (Colly) of Respondent Ministry, being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the principles of equity, justice and good conscience and provisions of Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations of the Respondent School. (ii) A Writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondent School to exercise jurisdiction vested in it as per its Memorandum of Association and the Rules and regulations and give one more option to the Petitioners to switch over from CPF to GPF-cum-Pension Scheme. (iii) A Writ of Prohibition restraining the Respondent No. 1 (Ministry of Human resource Development) from interfering with the Respondent School in dealing with the request of the petitioners for switch over from CPF Scheme to GPF-cum-Pension Scheme. ?

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that when the petitioners had joined the service of respondent No. 2 school, there was Contributory Provident fund Scheme in vogue and there was no Pension Scheme for the benefit of the employees in the school. Pension Scheme was introduced in respondent No. 2 school based on the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission vide o. M. No. 4/1/87-PIC-I dated the 1st May, 1987 which was adopted by respondent no. 2 school. It was mentioned in the O. M. that the Fourth Central Pay commission has recommended that all the CPF beneficiaries in service on 01. 01. 1986 should be deemed to have come over to Pension Scheme on that date unless they specifically opt out to continue under the CPF Scheme. The option to continue under the CPF Scheme was to be exercised and conveyed to the concerned head of Office by 30. 09. 1987 in the form enclosed with the OM, if the employees wish to continue under the CPF Scheme. In terms of para 3. 6 of the OM, the option once exercised was to be treated as final.

(3.) THE petitioners had exercised their options to continue under the CPF scheme and had conveyed their decision in regard to the above to the concerned head of Office by the cut off date mentioned in the OM i. e. 30. 09. 1987. The petitioners later on realized that the Pension Scheme was better than the CPF scheme, they showed their interest to switch over to the Pension Scheme and this was sometime in the year 1998. The said request of the petitioners for changing over their options from the CPF Scheme to the Pension Scheme was placed for consideration before the Executive Committee of respondent No. 2 school at the meeting held on 24. 04. 1998. The Executive Committee of respondent No. 2 school passed a Resolution on 24. 04. 1998 and had resolved to recommend to the Ministry of Human Resource Development to allow the members of the faculty and staff for changing over their options from the CPF Scheme to the Pension Scheme. However, the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education, Technical section-II turned down the proposal of respondent No. 2 school contained in its resolution dated 24. 04. 1998 vide their letters bearing No. 4-14/98-TS. II dated 26. 03. 1999 and 4-14/98-TS. II dated 18. 01. 2000. The petitioners have alleged that the action taken by the respondent Ministry vide these impugned letters dated 26. 03. 1999 and 18. 01. 2000 is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the principles of equity, justice and good conscience and provisions of Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations of the respondent No. 2 School. The petitioners have contended that respondent No. 2 school was within its powers to allow them one more opportunity to switch over to the CPF Scheme to the Pension scheme without seeking any approval from the Government for the same. The petitioners have cited the instances of employees of BIS, Delhi University and iits (Kanpur, Roorkie, Mumbai and Kharagpur) to whom their respective employers have allowed second option to switch over from the CPF Scheme to the Pension scheme. The case of the petitioners is that since the Pension Scheme is far better than the CPF Scheme and as the Pension Scheme is a welfare Scheme, they should be permitted to exercise the second option to switch over from the CPF scheme to the Pension Scheme and accordingly they have prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 School to exercise jurisdiction vested in it as per its Memorandum of Association and the Rules and Regulations and give one more option to them to switch over from the CPF Scheme to the Pension scheme. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ of prohibition restraining respondent No. 1 (Ministry of Human Resource Development) from interfering with respondent No. 2 School in dealing with their request for switch over from the cpf Scheme to the Pension Scheme.