IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 19379 of 2001 Between: K.V.KRISHNA RAO S/O. K.SUBBA RAO R/O. KUSHAIGUDA, HYDERABAD. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Nuclear Fuel Complex, Rep. by its Administrative Officer, Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, Which its Office at ECIL (PO), Hyderabad 500 062. 2 The Central Administrative Tribunal, Rep. by its Registrar, Hyderabad Bench, Which its office Opp to public Gardens, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ order or direction, one more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus suspending the orders dated 3.8.2001 passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad on O A No. 1642 of 2001 as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law and set aside the same and direct the Respondent No.1 to grant penslonery benefits to the Petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.MADHAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.ANDAPALLI SANJEEV KUMAR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.P. NO. 19379 of 2001 ORDER : ( Per HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED ) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking Writ of Mandamus challenging the orders dated 3-8-2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad in O.A.No.1642 of 2001 and consequently seeks direction to the respondent no.1 to extend the pensionary benefits to the petitioner herein. The petitioner was initially appointed as Tradesman-A in Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC). While he was working as Tradesman-A his services were confirmed in the year 1973. On confirmation of services, the employee has to give option to remain in Contributory Provident Fund scheme (herein after referred to as “CPF”). If no specific option is exercised, it is deemed that he is covered under pension scheme. The case of the petitioner is that he did not submit option to remain in CPF Scheme. The petitioner later on submitted application for voluntary retirement on 13-12-1999, under pension scheme. The said application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is governed by CPF Scheme and he is not entitled to retire under Rule 48(A ) of CCS Rules. The petitioner has therefore approached the Tribunal stating that he is entitled for pensionary benefits as per rules 48 of the CCS Rules, and not by CPF Scheme. The Tribunal by its impugned order dismissed the O.A. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Official Memorandum dated 17-1-1967, where no option is exercised by the employee, he is deemed to have been covered by Pension Scheme, and as no option was obtained from the petitioner, the respondents cannot put the petitioner in CPF Scheme for the purpose of pensionary benefits. It is further contended that an entry was made in his service register subsequently by the authorities, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the benefits under pensionary scheme. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner’s services were confirmed in the year 1973 that the service register entries also show that the petitioner has opted to remain in CPF Scheme, and therefore no interference is warranted in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The petitioners services were confirmed in the year 1973. According to Official Memorandum dated 17-1-1967 of the Department of Atomic Energy, the option shall be exercised and communicated to the Head Office concerned within three months from the date of issue of the Memorandum or the date of the order appointing such an officer to a permanent post whichever is later, failing which he shall be deemed to have exercised his option in favour of the pensionary benefits. According to the petitioner, he did not exercise his option on his confirmation of services in the year 1973. However, the entries in service book contain that the petitioner opted to remain in CPF scheme, and that the provident fund ledger card for the years 1991-92 to 1994-95 show that the Government contributed to the provident fund, that the petitioner’s contributions were also noted in the ledger card. The Tribunal considering those circumstances, came to the conclusion that the Government would contribute only if the petitioner is covered by CPF Scheme. That apart, though another chance was given to the petitioner in the year 1992, he did not opted to the pensionary benefit scheme. Learned Standing Counsel has also produced the service book stating that the petitioner has opted to retain at “CPF” scheme only. On perusal of the entire material on record we are of the view that the Tribunal considering the circumstances came to the conclusion that the petitioner has been continuing in CPF scheme and therefore rightly declined to entertain the O.A. In the circumstances, we do not see any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. _____________ GM, J ____________ GBP, J 29-9-2008 KK THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.P. NO. 19379 of 2001 Date : 29-9-2008