IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21664 of 2004 Between: E.J Vijaya Kumar S/o.Late Sri E.John Assistant B at SDSC SHAR Centre/ISRO Resident of Near SBI/Sullurpet Nellore District.Pin 524 124. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Union of India, rep. by Secretary to Government, Department of Space F.Block, Cauvery Bhavan Kampegowda Road Bangalore 560009. 2 The Director SHAR Centre, Sriharikota.524 124. 3 The Head, P&GA SHAR Centre ISRO Sriharikota 524 124. 4 The Administrative Officer-II Establishment/ISRO/SHAR Centre Sriharikota. .....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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Certiorari setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in O.A.No.1363/2002, dated 6.2.2004 by holding that this order is unust, illegal and opposed to principles of natural justice and in consequence declare that the petitioner is deemed to have opted for G.P>F/ Pension Scheme and he shall be covered under this scheme only and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:DR.P.BHASKARA MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 6.2.2004 passed in O.A.NO. 1363 of 2002 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, by virtue of which, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. This case has got checkered events. The petitioner along with others approached the Tribunal by way of O.A No. 738 of 2000 taking a specific stand that he along with others exercised their option to retain CPF and that they wanted to switch over to GPF/pension scheme by exercising one more option and that facility was not provided on the ground that once the option is exercised that attained finality and there is no question of exercising option once again. The Tribunal rejected the grounds raised and held that the decision of the Government is based upon the policy of the Government which cannot be interfered with by it, as held by the Supreme Court in “M.P.OIL EXTRACTION AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF M.P AND ANOTHER[1]. It was further held that it is open to the Government to consider to grant another option in future, if it so feel it just and desirable. Again O.A No. 1363 of 2002 was filed with the following prayer: “to declare that the applicant herein is entitled to be treated as having come over to GPF/Pension Scheme in terms of OM.No. 2/10(2)/87-I, dated 21.10.1987 issued by the first respondent with all consequential benefits such as pensionary” The Tribunal after careful examination of the facts held as under: “Therefore, the issue obviously has been settled, has become final and could not be agitated upon once again. The substance of the two O.As being the same, this O.A therefore could not be entertained and therefore is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner has not given any option form and he has not opted or exercised his option governed under CPF Scheme and the authorities failed to produce the option form. He further contended that one J. Srinivas, who is a Light Vehicle Driver at (LVD)/S.No. 98, was covered under the C.P.F scheme. But later on after a gap of 15 years, the respondents vide letter dated 21.2.2003 stated that his name was included in the list of employees under CPF benefits inadvertently and hence, his name is changed to GPF/Pension Scheme and whereas the case of the petitioner was denied, which is illegal and arbitrary. On the other hand Mr. A Rajasekhar Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents had drawn our attention to the proceedings dated 29.1.1999, which reads as under: “OFFICE MEMORANDUM Shri. E.J. Vijaya Kumar, O.C. ‘B’ , Code No. E12353 may refer to his letter dated 11.1.1999 intimating that he did not opt to retain CPF benefits in terms of circular No. SCF:PGA:ESTT:II:53187 dated 9.11.1987 as such he is deemed to have opted for GPF/Pension Scheme. In this connection Shri. Vijaya Kumar is informed that Vide Office Order No. SCF PGA:ESTT:II 44/88 dated 5.3.1988, he was clearly informed that he opted for CPF benefits and as such would continue under CPF benefits. Further yearly PF statements from 1988-89 onwards were also sent showing that he has been governed under CPF benefits. Shri. Vijaya Kumar is therefore directed to intimate this Office as to why he had not raised any objection over the above all these years.” He also contended that when once the applicant earlier approached the Court with a specific stand that he may be given one more chance to exercise his option changing his option from CPF to GPF, the Tribunal negatived his request and invited an adverse order and he ought not to have filed the present O.A and the Tribunal has rightly held that principles of res-judicata & constructive res-judicata are attracted. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for change of his option from CPF to that of GPF Scheme. We have considered the rival contentions. It is needless to mention that in proceedings dated 2nd July 1999 the PF statements of 1988-89 issued to the petitioner clearly shows that he has been governed under CPF benefits only. The petitioner approached the tribunal with a specific plea that he has opted for CPF scheme and may be permitted to switch over to GPF scheme on his own volitions. He clearly states that he is governed by the CPF Scheme and he requested the Court to give him one more opportunity to switch over to GPF Scheme and that opportunity was declined by the Tribunal on the ground that once an option is exercised that becomes final and there is no question of again seeking to exercise that option and with a similar plea and for the same relief he has approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal held that the decision rendered in O.A.No. 738 of 2000 had attained finality and the same is impermissible under law and principles of res-judicata or constructive res-judicata are attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. As stated the applicants are those who have opted for CPF scheme on various dates. After 31.12.87, they have been making representations to the respondent-authorities for favour of offering one more option. The matter was raised and discussed in the Departmental JCM meetings. But unfortunately no firm decision of giving one more opportunity was taken. This indecision is creating avoidable problems and distress to some of the applicants who have retired, and others who are on the verge of superannuation while the rest are in utter confusion as to what is there for them after their retirement. As far as Sri J. Srinivasan is concerned there is no plea raised to that effect before the Tribunal and the same plea is raised here and in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction plea which is not made available before the Tribunal cannot be exercised as the certiorari jurisdiction is very narrow and limited and we have to see whether the decision of the Tribunal is legal, justifiable or any jurisdictional error is there or the tribunal has over stepped or exceeded its limits or ignored any relevant material facts while rendering decision. Whatever are the pleadings raised before the Tribunal, we cannot enlarge the scope of certiorari jurisdiction and it is impermissible under law. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY,J Dt. 31.03.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies [1] 1997 7 SCC 592