T VENKATACHALAM Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of Ms.M.Santhini, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.S.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel for the first respondent; and Mr.K.Gunasekaran, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition are as follows:-

(3.) IN the light of the rival contentions, it has to be seen, whether the petitioner has made out any case for entertaining the Writ Petition. Unlike the Pension Scheme available to the Government employees, the provident fund and other connected benefits are given based upon the subscriptions made by the employee and the employer. The Scheme relating to pension is statutorily covered and the employee, who likes to exercise the option to join the Scheme was offered enough time and now, the petitioner cannot seek for extended option, to exercise his option for joining the Scheme, which does not now exist in his favour, after retiring from service and after getting his Provident Fund account settled. IN the light of the above, there being no enforceable right in favour of the petitioner, this Writ Petition is misconceived. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.