JUDGMENT Aloke Chakrabarti, J.
1. The petitioner was appointed on 1.8.1960 as watchman in the department of Food Central Store Department at Agra Cantt. which was run and controlled by the Union of India. in the year 1965 services of the petitioner were transferred to the Food Corporation of India under Section 12A of the Food Corporation Act, 1964. it is stated in the writ petition that every employee of Food Corporation who was transferred under Section 12A(1) of the said Act was supposed to submit option under Section 12A(4) and the petitioner could not file the option and ultimately was advised that there was an oral option. The petitioner continued to contribute to the General Provident Fund and never contributed to the Contributory Provident Fund. Ultimately by letter dated 5.12.1983 the petitioner was informed that he would retire on 30.9.1985 on attaining 58 years of age. The petitioner made representation and was informed in reply thereto that as he had not submitted option form, the petitioner would be treated to be governed by the Regulations of the Corporation nor the Rules of the Government. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
2. The respondents filed counter-affidavit wherein it has been stated that the petitioner having not filed the option form as required under sub-section (4) of Section 12A he was transferred to Corporation by virtue of Section 12A(1) and ceased to be the employee of the Central Government. it has been stated that provisions of Regulations of Corporation became applicable in the case of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is to retire on attaining the age of 58 years in terms of the relevant Service Regulations of the Corporation. The facts and circumstances stated by the petitioner showing as to why he could not submit the option form have been denied.
3. The petitioner filed rejoinder-affidavit.
4. After considering the respective contentions of the parties, I find that the only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner exercised option orally and, therefore, he was governed by the Rules of the Government and. therefore, is not liable to retire attaining the age of 58 years as the Regulations of the Corporation are not applicable in the case of the petitioner. in support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the fact that the petitioner although continued contribution to the General Provident Fund and never started contribution to Contributory Provident Fund which would have been in ordinary consequence of petitioner's transfer under the Corporation.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner did not file any option in writing as required under sub-section (4) of Section 12A. The said provision of law makes it clear that such option is to be submitted within the specified time in writing and if such option is not submitted, the petitioner would cease to be employee of the Central Government and become an employee of the Corporation and would be governed by the regulations framed by the Corporation. Therefore, there being no provision for exercising option orally, even on admitted facts there being no option in writing, the petitioner by virtue of the legal provision ceased to be employee of Central Government and became an employee of the Corporation. Therefore, the regulations made by the Corporation became applicable to the petitioner. Admittedly, the respondents published a list of employees transferred to the Corporation by virtue of law and the petitioner has been Included in the said list. Such publication in the Gazette of the list of employees transferred has not been challenged by the petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner of his any right as an employee of the Government is not tenable. The further fact that the petitioner continued to contribute in the General Provident Fund does not create any right nor the same helped the petitioner to continue under the Central Government. The statutory provision taking effect automatically could not be disputed on such facts. Mere not coming under the Scheme of the Contributory Provident Fund as applicable for the employees of the Corporation, does not prevent application of legal provision particularly when such transfer to Corporation of the petitioner was published in the official gazette long back on 11.6.1974.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the contentions of the petitioner cannot be accepted and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.