IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 15483 of 2008 Between: T.V.L.Narasimha Rao S/o. Late Laxmi Narasimha Rao R/o. Flat No.301, Vigneshwara Nilayam, Balaiah Sasttry Layout, Seethammadara, Visakhapatnam-530 013 ..... PETITIONER AND Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board, Rep. by its Chairman, Karmika Jyothi, Port Area, Visakhapatnam-530 035. .....RESPONDENT 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 issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or orders, direction or directions declaring the action of the Respondent in refusing to bring the petitioner under the pension Scheme on the ground that the failed to submit his option 3 months prior to the date of retirement through he has submitted within in 6 months from the date of retirement notice in accordance with the pension Rules, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to issue a consequential direction to the respondent to bring the petitioner under the Pension Scheme from the date of his retirement by paying all the arrears. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent: MR.P.SRI RAGHU RAM The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner joined the service of Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board (for short ‘the Board’) prior to 1979. Up to 01.04.1979, the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme was in force. Under that Scheme, the contribution was being deducted from the salaries of the employees, and along with the corresponding matching contribution, a lump sum was being paid to the employees on retirement. There was no facility of pension to the employees. With eﬀect from 01.04.1979, the Board adopted the Pension Rules of 1979 providing for the facility of pension to the retired employees. This replaced the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. In the matter of switching over from one scheme to other, option was given to the employees and time for exercise of the same was extended on number of occasions. The petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2007. He states that he has exercised his option to be covered by the Pension Rules of 1979 within six months from the date, on which the intimation of his superannuation was given. He feels aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Board in extending the pension. The respondent ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit, opposing the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that the Pensions Rules of 1979 are not applicable to the petitioner and that he is covered by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Sri Raghu Ram, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent. The Pension Rules of 1979 were made applicable to the employees of the Board with eﬀect from 01.04.1979. The Rules contemplated issuance of a notice enabling the employees, who were already covered by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, to switch over to the pension scheme. The petitioner states that the six months time mentioned in Note-1 of the Pension Rules of 1979 commences from the date, on which the notice of retirement is served on the employee and that he has exercised such option within six months from the date on which he was given the intimation of retirement. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, the learned Standing Counsel has placed before this Court, the form, through which the petitioner has exercised his option. This was way back in the year 1980. According to him, the petitioner has opted to be covered by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme alone. In that view of the matter, the respondent cannot be compelled to extend the beneﬁt of pension. As of now, no plea is taken about any facility of withdrawing such option and to be covered by the Pension Rules of 1979. If the petitioner intends to withdraw his option exercised by him, necessary application has to be made and it has to be examined with reference to the existing rules and circulars. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to make fresh representation taking into account the option exercised by him in the year 1980 and as and when such representation is made, the respondent shall examine the same with reference to the existing rules. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:01.09.2008. kdl