S HANUMANTHA RAO Vs. F C I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the employees of the respondent-Food Corporation of India. Earlier, they worked in Food Department of the Central Government. By virtue of the provisions of Section 12-A of the Food Corporations Act, 1964, the services of the petitioners stood transferred to the respondent-Corporation.

(2.) Options were called for from the petitioner in the year 1973, requiring them to opt either to the General Provident Fund ( in short G.P.F.) scheme applicable to the Central Government Employees or to the Contributory Provident Fund (in short C.P.F) scheme of the respondent-Corporation. The petitioners submitted their options retaining the G.P.F. shceme of the Central Government and the respondent-Corporation continued the petitioner to subscribe for G.P.F. scheme. Subsequently, the Food Corporations Act was amended with effect from 31-12-1976, as a result of which, fresh options were required from the employees of the Corporation including the petitioners to state whether they would retain the leave. Provident Fund, retirement and other terminal benefits as admissible to the employees of the Central Government or leave, Provident Fund and other terminal benefits as admissible to the employees of the Corporation. In response to the said requirement, the petitioners submitted their options opting for the Provident Fund scheme existing with the respondent-Corporation i.e., C.P.F.

(3.) By Circular No. 176 of 1979 dated 18-12-1979 the respondent-Corporation called for options once again from the Government servants who were in service on 31st March, 1979 to opt either to the G.P.F. scheme or to the C.P.F. scheme. As it will be more beneficial to the employees in the matter of pension by virtue of liberalised pension rules, the other employees of the Food Department who are working in other establishments of the respondent-Corporation have opted for G.P.F. Scheme. According to the petitioners, the said circular was not brought to their notice and they could not give their options, once again opting for General Provident Fund scheme. They submitted that the circular was not circulated in their office and they were not aware of the same. They further submitted that the other employees of the Corporation who had knowledge of the said circular gave their options and got the benefits. The petitioners questioned the proceedings of the 4th respondent in Memo, dated 4-8-1988 as illegal and arbitrary, by which the request of the petitioners for their continuance in General Provident Fund Scheme was turned out. The petitioners further contended that the options exercised by them in the year 1977 were never acted upon and they continued with General Provident Fund scheme only, and that they are entitled to have their accounts continued in the General Provident Fund scheme and that no action should be taken for allotment of Contributory Provident Fund accounts to the petitioners.