Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Chhayaben vs State

High Court Of Gujarat|07 May, 2012

JUDGMENT / ORDER

1. Heard Ms. Chaturvedi, learned Advocate for the petitioners.
2. It emerges from the record that the petitioner was appointed as Bal Sevika under Family and Child Welfare Scheme at Vadodara. The monitoring and supervision of training programme was being undertaken by the Gujarat State Social Welfare Board.
3. It is not in dispute that during her service the petitioner was beneficiary of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.
4. The petitioner has claimed that vide office memorandum dated 1st May 1987 it was provided, inter alia, that:
"The undersigned is directed to state that the Central Government employees who are governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPF Scheme) have been given repeated options in the past to come over to the Pension Scheme. The last such option was given in the Department of Personnel and Training O.M.No.F3(1)- Pension unit/85 dated the 6th June, 1985. however, some Central Government employees still continue under the CPF Scheme. The Fourth Central Pay Commission has now recommended that all CPF beneficiaries in service on January 1, 1986, should be deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme on that date unless they specifically opt out to continue under the CPF Scheme.
2. After careful consideration the President is pleased to decide that the said recommendation shall be accepted and implemented in the manner hereinafter indicated.
3. All CPF beneficiaries, who were in service on 1.1.1986 and who are still in service on the date of issue of these orders will be deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme."
5. On the strength of the said provision in the office memorandum, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner ought to have been granted benefit of Pension Scheme, inasmuch as she was in service on 01.01.1986. However, the said benefit has been denied to the petitioner.
6. The petitioner has prayed for below mentioned relief in present petition:
"8(B) Lordships be pleased to pass order or direction for transfer from CPF Scheme to Pension Scheme on relaxation ground with all consequential benefit."
7. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and on consideration of the memorandum dated 01.05.1987 it appears that as per the provision contained in the memorandum, unless the employee expressly and specifically exercised option to continue under CPF Scheme, the employee should be deemed to be part of Pension Scheme and that those who have desired to continue under CPF Scheme they ought to convey their intention to the Head Office on or around 30th September 1987.
8. In present case, on the basis of the material placed on record, it appears that the petitioner had not exercised option to continue with CPF Scheme. Therefore, as per the provision contained in the said memorandum, ordinarily the petitioner ought to have been treated as member of Pension Scheme.
9. However, the said request of the petitioner does not appear to have been accepted. From the material on record, it does not become clear as to whether in accordance with the said memorandum dated 01.05.1987 or at any time prior to that the petitioner had ever expressly conveyed that she desires to continue with CPF Scheme or not. Under the circumstances, below mentioned direction is passed:
10. The competent authority of the respondent shall take up case of petitioner for consideration and on the basis of her service record the competent authority shall ascertain as to whether the petitioner had either under said memorandum dated 01.05.1987 or on any other provision/instructions expressly conveyed her desire to continue with CPF Scheme or not. If such intention is not expressly conveyed then appropriate decision in accordance with the provisions contained under memorandum dated 01.05.1987 shall be taken by the competent authority within period of 8 weeks from service of certified copy of present order. A reasoned order on this count shall be passed and conveyed to the petitioner.
11. With the aforesaid clarification and directions, petition is disposed of.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) jani Top
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Chhayaben vs State

Court

High Court Of Gujarat

JudgmentDate
07 May, 2012