RADHEY SHYAM KUMAWAT Vs. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED of the communication dated 23rd February, 2008; declining the prayer of the petitioner to change over the Pension Scheme; in view of the option exercised by the petitioner for Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'CPF Scheme', for short); the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the following relief(s): -

(2.) SHORN off unnecessary details, the indispensable essential material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are: that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Personal Assistant (P.A.) and on 20th April, 1977. He joined the services of the Rajasthan Housing Board constituted under the Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Principal Private Secretary on 30th April, 1996. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that being ignorant of the consequences and implications, he inadvertently opted for CPF Scheme. Since the Rajasthan Housing Board subsequently has taken a decision in it's 176th meeting held on 13th August, 1997 vide order dated 19th December, 1997, to include the employees of the Rajasthan Housing Board under the Pension Scheme instead of CPF Scheme; the petitioner addressed a representation to the Chairman, Rajasthan Housing Board, with a request to allow him to opt for Pension Scheme. The petitioner also offered for surrender/deposit of the amount of CPF, with interest, to the Rajasthan Housing Board since he realized that Pension Scheme would be beneficial. In response to the representation vide communication dated 23rd February, 2008, the petitioner has been informed of the decision by the Rajasthan Housing Board declining his prayer. Further, the benefits of CPF Scheme have already been accorded to him at the time of his retirement, according to his option exercised and rules did not permit for any change of option to switch over the Pension Scheme once the petitioner having exercised the option to continue under the CPF Scheme. The petitioner addressed yet another representation dated 17th March, 2008 followed by a notice for demand of justice through Counsel on 14th April, 2008.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the contents of the writ application has vehemently argued that the petitioner being ignorant of the consequences and implications, submitted his option inadvertently exercising for continuance under the CPF Scheme. Later -on, having realized that the Pension Scheme is much more beneficial, he represented to the respondents with a prayer to allow him to switch over to Pension Scheme and also offered to surrender/deposit the entire amount of CPF Scheme, released to him at the time of his superannuation; which has been declined by the respondents in an arbitrary and illegal manner. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is entitled for pensionary benefits under the Regulations of 1992 as well as in view of the decision taken by the Rajasthan Housing Board in it's 176th meeting held on 13th August, 1997. Further, there was no restriction imposed by the Rajasthan Housing Board, with reference to admissibility of the benefits to the employees, who retired before the issuance of the order dated 19th December, 1997. It is further contended that the Regulations of 1992 imposes no restriction on the change of option as well, for switching over to Pension Scheme and the respondents are under an obligation to allow an opportunity to the petitioner for change of his option to switch over to Pension Scheme. Moreover, the Rajasthan Housing Board has power to relax the provisions of the Regulations of 1992, in hard cases as an exception.