SISIR KUMAR MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner alleges that the authorities are guilty of inaction in that his revised option exercised on January 24, 1992 has not been considered by them till date.

(2.) Case of the petitioner is this. Under the previous rules he exercised option in favour of Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity. When the Government by order dated December 16, 1991 gave fresh opportunity of submitting revised option in favour of pension including family pension- cum-gratuity, he changed his mind and decided to submit the revised option in favour of pension including family pension-cum-gratuity. Consequently, he submitted the option form dated January 24, 1992. He did not refund the employer's share of contributions (to provident fund) together with interest and additional interest, out of the impression that the amount was to be refunded by him after acceptance of his revised option by the authority. From time to time he made representations, but the authorities did not take any action in the matter. Hence, he was compelled to take out this writ petition dated March 2, 2006.

(3.) Counsel submits that in view of the Government decision dated December 16, 1991, the authorities were bound to accept the petitioner's revised option exercised in favour of pension including family pension-cum- gratuity. He says that in the case of Bijoli Bhattacharya vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5061 of 2004, the Apex Court gave the decision dated August 6, 2004 that option exercised, though belatedly, should be accepted by the authority concerned.