SH. V.K RAMAMURTHY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 583 · Decided: 13-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
SH. V.K RAMAMURTHY 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
AUGUST 13, 1996 
[K RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PA'ITANAIK, JJ.) 
B 
Service Law: 
Pension-Railway employee-Availing benefits of CPF scheme-Intro-
duction of pension scheme-Six options given to him for switchover to C 
pension-Employee consistently opting to continue for CPF scliem,,.---Retire-
ment of employee--24 years after retirement filing of writ in Supreme 
Court-Seeking declaration for switchover to pension schemr-Held writ 
petition not maintainable. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
D 
Arlicle 32-Writ-Laches-Dismissal of writ. 
The petitioner, a railway employee, superannuated from service on 
14th July, 1972. While he was still in service a pension scheme was 
introduced. Prior lo his retirement as many as six options were given to E 
him to choose whether he would remain in provident fund scheme or would 
switch over to the pension scheme. He consistently and deliberately cho~e 
to continue in the Provident Fund Scheme. On his superannuation the 
entire dues which he was entitled to from the provident fund scheme were 
paid to him. After 24 years of his retirement he filed a writ petition in this 
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking directions to the 
itailway Administration :(i) to allow the petitioner to switch over from the 
Provident Fund Scheme to the Pension Scheme; and (ii) that he should be 
granted the pensionary benefit w.e.f. the date of his superannuation i.e. 
14.7.1972. 
Dismissing the petition, this Court 
HELD : The petitioner who retired in the year 1972 and did not 
exercise his option to come over to the Pension Scheme even though he was 
granted six opportunities, is not entitled to opt for Pension Scheme at this 
F 
G 
length of time. (588-E] 
H 
583 
A 
B 
584 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
Krishena Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., [1990] 4 SCC 207; State 
of Rajasthan v. Rajastltan Pensioner Samaj, [1991] Supp. 2 SCC 141 and 
All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association and Ors. v. Union of 
India and A11r., (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 664, relied on. 
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, [1983) 1 SCC 305, rererred to. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 174 of 
1996. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
C 
K.B.S. Rajan and Ms. Pushpa Rajan for the Petitioner. 
D 
E 
F 
N.N. Goswami, A.S. Bhasme and T.C. Sharma for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PATTANAIK, J. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is 
by a superannuated railway employee seeking a mandamus from this Court 
to the railway administration directing them to allow the petitioner to 
switch over from the Provident Fund Scheme to the Pension Scheme and 
for a further direction that the petitioner should be granted the pensionary 
benefits w.e.f. the date of his superannuation i.e. 14.7.1972. 
The undisputed facts are that the petitioner started his career as an 
employee under Madras and Southern Maharata Railway on 23rd of July, 
1938. The said Railway later on became the Southern Railway. On attaining 
the age of superannuation, after rendering 34 years of service the petitioner 
retired on 14th July, 1972. The railway administration had sought for the 
option from the petition as to whether he would remain in Contributory 
Provident Fund Scheme or would switch over to the Pension Scheme. The 
petitioner, however, opted to continue in the Contributory Provident Fund 
Scheme and according on his superannuation the entire dues which he was 
entitled to from the Provident Fund Scheme was paid to him. The further 
G case of the petitioner is that since the railway administration had allowed 
some of its employees in the year 1984 to opt for the Pension Scheme even 
though earlier they had retired on receiving the provident fund dues, the 
petitioner also filed a representation to the General Manager, Southern 
Railway as well as to the Chairman, Railway Board. Not being favoured 
H with any reply the petitioner filed a representation to the Hon'ble Minister 
V.K. RAMAMUR1HY v. U.0.1. 
585 
for Railways. The petitioner also filed a representation in August, 1986 to A 
the Pension Adalat but the said Adalat gave the reply that his case could 
not come within the purview of Pension Adalat. Petitioner, thereafter, 
made one or two further representations to different authorities. 
Meanwhile, a retired employee had approached the Central Administrative 
Tribunal, Bombay Bench and the Tribunal g
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.