IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 810-CAT of 2011 Date of Decision: January 18, 2011 Dr. Saroj Parvez and others …Petitioners Versus Union of India and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate, for the petitioners. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The short issue raised in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether option once exercised in favour of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme be changed to Pension Scheme. 2. The petitioners, who have been working as doctors in the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘PGIMER’) have lost the legal battle before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) and have approached this Court seeking quashing of order dated 29.10.2010 (P-3), passed by the Tribunal. 3. The proposition of law is well settled that once option has been exercised it cannot be reopened. In that regard reliance may be placed on a Constitution Bench judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Krishena Kumar v. Union of C.W.P. No. 810-CAT of 2011 India, AIR 1990 SC 1782. 4. Mr. Patwalia, learned counsel for the petitioners has, however, argued that one Dr. H.S. Chawla has been permitted to change his option despite the fact that he had earlier opted for CPF Scheme. In that regard, learned counsel has referred to the information received by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which is taken on record as Mark-‘A’. According to the learned counsel it would clearly make out that Dr. H.S. Chawla has opted for CPF Scheme but despite that he has been permitted to switch over to Pension Scheme. Another submission made by Mr. Patwalia is that the respondent-PGIMER was fully competent to permit the change of option at its own level and there was no necessity for them to claim ratification of its decision from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi. 5. Having heard learned counsel and perusing the paper book with his able assistance, we regret our inability to accept his submissions. In the face of settled proposition of law that option once exercised cannot be changed as per the decision in Krishena Kumar’s case (supra), it is not possible to accept the submission made by the learned counsel. If the respondent-PGIMER has committed an error or illegality then the same cannot constitute a basis for issuance of directions because it would amount to perpetuating the illegality. The Courts cannot be a party to any such decision which may result in issuance of direction to a person to commit an illegal act. The other submission that there was no necessity for the respondent-PGIMER to send the matter to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, no detailed consideration would be necessary because once the option cannot 2 C.W.P. No. 810-CAT of 2011 be changed, the authorities of the respondent-PGIMER could not have permitted any such change at their level. Even if the matter was not sent to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, even then the right of the petitioners to change the option could not have been given by the respondent-PGIMER. There is, thus, no merit in the instant petition warranting its admission and the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) January 18, 2011 JUDGE Pkapoor 3