BHAJANRAO TULSIRAM GOLAIT Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners (now the heirs of the original petitioner) have prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and/or order directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for the pensionary benefits and to fix and pay pension to the petitioner regularly every month.

(2.) IT is the case on behalf of the petitioners that the original petitioner was working as a permanent driver with the respondents and has retired on 1 -8 -1985 after putting in long continuous service of about 30 years without break. It is the contention on behalf of the original petitioner that his case is not considered for pension scheme though he had filled up the requisite forms opting for the pension scheme sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation by resolution No.170 dated 26 -6 -1984. It is submitted that as the petitioner was not given the benefit of pension scheme, the petitioner has served a legal notice dated 25 -1 -1996 to the respondents. However, in spite of that, the petitioner has not been given the benefit of pension scheme introduced by the respondents.

(3.) PETITION is opposed by filing the affidavit -in -reply on behalf of the respondent Corporation. It is submitted that the petitioner has failed to exercise the option within the time limit allowed by the Corporation and he has failed even to take advantage of the extended time limit for exercising such option. It is further submitted that the intension of the Corporation in extending the date of exercising option upto 2 -7 -1991 was to see that all those who were in service on 1 -1 -1983 but retired before the date of introduction of the pension scheme should get an opportunity to have second thoughts, and to opt for pension scheme, if they so desired, within the extended time limit. It is further submitted in the reply that the petitioner has not exercised any option within the time limit so prescribed, however, for the first time made a grievance somewhere in September 1993 when he alleges to have made an application in the form of reminder to the Corporation making grievance that he was not admitted to the pension scheme though he had applied for the same. It is also further submitted that if the petitioner had opted for pension scheme within the time limit extended by the Corporation and also taken necessary steps, to pay back the emoloyer's contribution, there is no reason why the administration should exclude him from the pension scheme, more particularly when the benefit has been given to all those employees, who have exercised their option. It is also further submitted that in fact, the amount of gratuity has already been made to the petitioner.