RSA No.2500 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2500 of 2007 Date of Decision: 18.9.2008 Roshan Lal Aggarwal .....Appellant Vs. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. G.K. Chawla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Narindra Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The appellant, an employee of the Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., a successor of Haryana State Electricity Board, challenges the judgement passed by the District Judge, Gurgaon, accepting the appeal filed by the respondents, reversing the trial Court's judgement and dismissing the suit. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration, in essence, praying that though during his service, he had opted for the Employers Provident Fund (E.P.F.) Scheme, but as the Electricity Board granted an opportunity to its employees to shift from the E.P.F. to General Provident Fund (G.P.F.) Scheme,where pension was payable, his application for shifting to the latter scheme should not have been rejected. The respondents opposed the prayer in suit by alleging that though, an option was granted to the appellant to shift from the E.P.F. Scheme to the G.P.F. Scheme, he did RSA No.2500 of 2007 2 not exercise his option in accordance with the relevant rules, so he could not be allowed to alter his option after retirement. The learned trial Court, after considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, decreed the suit by holding that the appellant is entitled to alter his option to the G.P.F. Scheme. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgement, the respondents filed an appeal. The first appellate Court, accepted the appeal, set aside the judgement passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit, by holding that as the appellant had failed to exercise his option to switch over from the E.P.F. to the G.P.F. Scheme, he could not do so after retirement on 30.9.1996 and that too after accepting the gratuity and the amount of E.P.F. Counsel for the appellant submits that though the suit was filed after retirement, a large number of employees were allowed to switch over from the E.P.F. to the G.P.F. Scheme and in a large number of judgements, this Court granted such a benefit to similarly situated employees. The first appellate Court, therefore, committed an error in accepting the appeal. It is further submitted that though the appellant was a regular employee, he did not receive any communication from the respondents requiring him to opt for the G.P.F. Scheme. The respondents have failed to adduce any evidence in support of their assertion that despite the offer to opt for the G.P.F. Scheme, the appellant failed to do so. It is,therefore, submitted that the appeal be accepted, the judgement passed by the first appellate Court be set aside and that of the trial Court be restored. Counsel for the respondents, however, does not deny the fact that a large number of employees were granted permission to switch over from the E.P.F. to the G.P.F. Scheme and that in a large number of cases, RSA No.2500 of 2007 3 this Court allowed similar relief. It is,however, submitted that in all those cases, employees had exercised their option to switch over from the E.P.F. to the G.P.F. Scheme or despite the exercise of their option within the prescribed time period, their claims were wrongly rejected or were kept pending or had been considered and rejected by officers, who had no jurisdiction to reject their claim. It is submitted that the appellant's case is entirely different, as he continued as a member of the E.P.F. Scheme upto his retirement on 30.9.1996 and upon retirement, accepted gratuity and the amount of E.P.F., payable to him. It was only after retirement and receipt of the E.P.F. amount that the appellant raised a claim to opt for the G.P.F. Scheme. It is, thus, submitted that as the appellant did not opt, during his service, for the G.P.F. Scheme, the first appellate Court rightly accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgements. The respondents, admittedly permitted their employees, who were members of the E.P.F. Scheme to switch options and become members of the G.P.F. Scheme. The offer was, however, subject to the employee exercising his option within the period prescribed in the official communication. As referred to in the arguments addressed by counsel for the parties, the first appellate Court held that as the appellant did not exercise his option to join the G.P.F. Scheme during his service, he could not do so after retirement. In order to place the aforementioned conclusion in its correct perspective, it will be appropriate to refer to an extract from the first appellate Court's judgment which reads as under :- “9. It is an admitted case of parties that plaintiff joined RSA No.2500 of 2007 4 as A.L.M. with Haryana State Electricity Board in the year 1961 on regular basis and retired on 30.9.1996 having put in 35 years of qualifying service. At the time plaintiff joined service, EPF Scheme was applicable and later defendants gave an option to all the officials to switch over to G.P.F. Scheme which option was to be exercised within a definite period. It is also not disputed that plaintiff did not opt for switching over of the scheme and continued to be a member of E.P.F. Scheme till retirement. It is also not in dispute that plaintiff retired on 30.9.1996 and accepted gratuity and amount of E.P.F. And withdrew the same.” The above extract, leaves no manner of doubt that the appellant did not opt for the G.P.F. Scheme during his employment and only chose to put forth his claim, after he retired from service and received the benefit of E.P.F. Scheme. The plaint or the evidence are devoid of any averment or material that the appellant, exercised an option to switch over to the G.P.F. Scheme or that the official communication offering an option to the employees to switch over to the G.P.F. Scheme was not communicated to him or to his office. The appellant, therefore, cannot be allowed to exercise the option, to opt for the G.P.F. Scheme after retirement. In the cases before this Court, where the benefit of the G.P.F. Scheme was allowed, the petitioners had either opted for the G.P.F. Scheme or their stand that the offer was never communicated was accepted. The appellant's grievance is a plain assertion that he should be allowed to opt for the G.P.F. Scheme was, RSA No.2500 of 2007 5 therefore, rightly declined by the first appellate Court. In view of what has been stated herein above, I find no error, whether in fact or in law that would raise a substantial question of law, inviting interference by this Court. Dismissed with no order as to costs. 18.9.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE