THE PRINCIPAL, SAINIK SCHOOL Vs. RAJAN BANDIWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal under section 2(1) of the MP Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, challenge is made to order -dated 1.10.2013, passed by the learned Writ Court in W.P(S) No. 142/2006.

(2.) FACTS , in nut -shell, go to show that respondent Dr. Rajan Bandiwar was working as a Master in Chemistry in Sainik School, Rewa. He filed the writ petition on 2.1.2006, with a grievance that the Sainik School is a society registered the Society Registrikaran Act, 1860, and the employees of the school were entitled to Contributory Provident Fund under the CPF Scheme with effect from 1.4.1988. Subsequently, the Governing Body of the Society decided to apply the Pension Scheme to employees of the Society, as is applicable to the employees of the Central Government and, therefore, vide communication dated 3.3.1989 employees who were in service of the Sainik School Organization as on 1.4.1988 were given a right to exercise their option either for continuing with the existing CPF Scheme or to switch over to the Pension Scheme, alongwith the GPF. Accordingly, a School Routine Order (SRO) dated 3.3.1989 was issued. As far as Dr. Rajan Bandiwar is concerned, it is stated that he could not opt for the Pension Scheme at that point of time, but subsequently, another communication was received whereby the Board of Governors of the Sainik School Society decided to give one fresh chance to the employees to exercise their option to switch over from the CPF Scheme to the Pension Scheme on or before 31.1.1992. It is the case of Dr. Rajan Bandiwar that after this letter was issued on 22.7.1991 by the authorities of the Sainik School, he submitted a representation on 22.3.2001, and forwarded certain further request, but the same was rejected on 24.8.2001 and again on 27.7.2001. However, he kept on representing and finally filed the writ petition in the year 2006.

(3.) IN the writ petition, it was his contention that the communication with regard to extension of cut -off date for submitting the option i.e. 31.1.1992, vide letter dated 22.7.1991, was never brought to his notice, it was not intimated to him and without proper intimation of this second option, as his right to switch over from the CPF Scheme to the Pension Scheme was adversely affected, he filed the writ petition. He claimed benefit in accordance to a judgment rendered by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 1712/2008 (J.P. Vashishtha Vs. Sainik School Society and another). The Himachal Pradesh High Court in the aforesaid case held that if an employee has not been communicated about the second option available, which was to be exercised upto 31.1.1992, benefit was granted to such of the employees and accordingly basing his claim on the said judgment, the writ petition was filed. The writ petition having been allowed, this appeal by the Sainik Society.