Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 184 (ALL)

Meenakshi Agarwal v. Union of India

2024-01-17

AJIT KUMAR

body2024
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J. Heard Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Bal Mukund, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents. 2. Petitioners before this Court are erstwhile faculty members of Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra, a Central Government Organisation controlled and funded by it through its own sets of rules and by-laws framed with the approval of Government of India. While petitioner No. 1 had already retired by the time present petition was presented before this Court on 30.11.2015, the other two petitioners were working and ultimately retired on 30.6.2019, during pendency of the writ petition. 3. All the three petitioners claim a writ in the nature of mandamus to command the respondents including Union of India to award them benefit of the Old Pension Scheme popularly known as G.P.F. Scheme by permitting them to opt for G.P.F. cum Pension Scheme (In short G.P.F. Scheme) in view of the subsequent orders issued by the Delhi University with the consent of Central Government, to permit the employees having C.P.F. Scheme to switch over to G.P.F. Scheme as late as in the year 2003. During the pendency of this petition, a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Kiran v. Union of India, 2016 SCC Online 4819, intervened as per which even those employees of such institutions who had already opted for C.P.F. Scheme and were not permitted to switch to G.P.F. Scheme on the principle that they could not gaze into the crystal ball the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme, and to speculate whether the existing state of affairs would continue especially the rate of interest that one would get on the accumulated fund as compared to benefits given to the pension optees at the stage of superannuation. Petitioner herein claim to be the last category of petitioners as came to be mentioned in paragraph 23 of the judgment who had opted for C.P.F. benefits. 4. Petitioner herein claim to be the last category of petitioners as came to be mentioned in paragraph 23 of the judgment who had opted for C.P.F. benefits. 4. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners' application remained pending consideration before the authorities since 2013 i.e. prior to their date of superannuation and even if the higher authorities of the Government of India refused to consider that application on the plea that there was no further option available in the year 1999, after 31.12.2003 now they can be benefited under the judgment of the Supreme Court as they were the third category of the petitioners who were similarly circumstanced. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, Sri Bal Mukund has argued, firstly that petitioners having attained the age of superannuation were no more the employees of the institute and, therefore, there is no question of giving them any option to switch over as this option could be exercised by working employees only; and secondly act and conduct in opting for C.P.F. scheme was a result of a conscious decision by the petitioners and they having not chosen to opt for C.P.F. Scheme prior to 30.9.1989 when the last opportunity was given by the Central Government, there was no question now to reopen the option in favour of retired employees. Meeting the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Kiran (supra), Sri Bal Mukund has argued that judgment would operate in personem and not in rem. He has argued that judgment having been delivered in particular cases that were being pursued in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court extended the benefit even to the third category of such employees approaching it and these appeals arose out of the said judgment of the Delhi High Court, whereas in the present case petitioners have chosen to approach this Court much after the expiry of last date to exercise option in the year 2003 made by the Delhi University. He submits, as far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he himself had opted to retire and take post retirement benefit as per the C.P.F. Scheme even prior to filing of his present petition. He submits, as far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he himself had opted to retire and take post retirement benefit as per the C.P.F. Scheme even prior to filing of his present petition. Sri Bal Mukund has also not denied the resolution of Board of Governors on date as was in the year 1999 making recommendations for permitting its employees another chance to switch over to C.P.F. Scheme. 6. Meeting the above three arguments as advanced by learned counsel Sri Bal Mukund appearing for the respondents, Sri Ashish Mishra has submitted in rejoinder that once the Government gave the above option as late as 2003, it could not be said that since petitioners had already exercised the option, they could not switch over. He submitted that the principle upon which the judgment has been delivered is equally applicable to the present case. It is also submitted that petitioners had moved their application to switch over in the year 1999 itself when all the petitioners were in service and, therefore, their right to claim benefit continued even if they had retired. 7. Meeting the argument further, learned Advocate submits that the respondents themselves made the petitioners to retire under the C.P.F. scheme with a rider that their claim for switching over from C.P.F. to G.P.F. scheme would depend upon the outcome of the pending litigation before this Court vide letters dated 12.7.2019 and 20.8.2019 brought on record as annexure to the supplementary rejoinder-affidavit. 8. To the argument of learned counsel for the respondent on the point of letter of the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Human Affairs and Development (Secondary and Higher Education Department) dated 18.11.1999, it is argued that this internal communication is between the first respondent and the third respondent and it refuses to consider the claim on the ground that there was no proposal, whereas there was a proposal to exercise open upto the year 2003 and, therefore, this letter has no significance and relevance. 9. Still further it is argued that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shashi Kiran's case, benefit would be applicable to the present case and petitioners cannot be denied benefit of such judgment which has been delivered during pendency of the writ petition. 10. 9. Still further it is argued that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shashi Kiran's case, benefit would be applicable to the present case and petitioners cannot be denied benefit of such judgment which has been delivered during pendency of the writ petition. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the records and judgment of the Supreme Court cited before this Court, firstly I find that the petitioners cannot be said to have failed to exercise option by the last day i.e. 31.12.2003 wishing to switch over from C.P.F. to G.P.F. as they had applied way back in 1999. The admitted position between the parties is that petitioners had admittedly exercised their option to remain under C.P.F. scheme as much before their retirement they had applied for switching over. The third respondent though made recommendations in their favour but the first respondent refused to entertain such application on the plea that there was no such option open in the year 1999. It is also an admitted position that the respondents themselves observed in the letter of the Deputy Registrar dated 12.7.2019 and 20.8.2019 that their claim from C.P.F. to G.P.F. scheme would depend upon the outcome of the pending litigation but of course there is no such letter in respect of petitioner No. 1, it appears since he had already retired at the time of filing of this writ petition. 11. Under the above facts and circumstances in my considered view, the letter of the Union of India dated 16.11.1999 becomes irrelevant and insignificant as the option to switch over had remain opened till 31.12.2003 as has come to be so recorded in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shashi Kiran (supra) vide its paragraph 29. 12. 11. Under the above facts and circumstances in my considered view, the letter of the Union of India dated 16.11.1999 becomes irrelevant and insignificant as the option to switch over had remain opened till 31.12.2003 as has come to be so recorded in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shashi Kiran (supra) vide its paragraph 29. 12. Coming to the judgment cited, I find that of the three batches in terms of category of cases namely (i) R.N. Virmani Batch of cases, (ii) N.C. Bakshi batch of cases (iii) Shashi Kiran Batch of cases, the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court allowed both Virmani Batch of cases and N.C. Batch of cases giving benefit of the office memorandum to the former and to the later on the ground that former had not opted but continued with contribution towards C.P.F. Scheme as if tacitly opted for C.P.F. by their conduct and latter ones, who though had consciously opted for C.P.F. Scheme but after the last cut off date 30.9.1987. Both these batches were given benefit of the G.P.F. cum Pension Scheme on the principle that last cut off date 30.9.1987 would not come in their way of opting for old G.P.F. Scheme as exception was to opt for C.P.F. Scheme. However, in respect of the Shashi Kiran Batch of cases the learned Single Judge refused the relief on the ground that they had exercised their option prior to the last cut off and that too cautiously and therefore, there was no room available to them for any ''come back situation''. Thus the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court classified the otherwise homogeneous group of employees seeking pension into two categories. Upon a Letters Patent Appeal being filed, while the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge in respect of Virmani Batch and N.C. Bakshi Batch dismissing the appeal of the University of Delhi, reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge in respect of Shashi Kiran Batch of cases by giving them relief on the principle that if the relief could have been granted to those 2469 employees who had consciously opted for C.P.F. Scheme may be after the last cut off date, the petitioners appellant of the Shashi Kiran Batch should not have been discriminated against and as they were 75 in numbers. So, even though they had applied to the High Court in the year 2010, the relief to switch over to G.P.F. Scheme/OPS was granted. Supreme Court of India upon Special Leave Petition filed by the University of Delhi affirmed the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court by making observations in their favour after discussing the legal aspects involved therein vide paragraph Nos. 22 to 37 that are reproduced hereunder: ''22. We now turn to Shashi Kiran batch of cases. 23. As indicated by the University in its affidavit filed after the Order dated 2.3.2020 was passed by this Court, 2611 employees had opted to be under CPF Scheme by the cut-off date, i.e. by 30.9.1987. Additionally, 626 employees exercised the option to be under CPF after the original cut-off, but within initial two extensions granted by the University. Thus, as against the entire body of employees of the University, 3237 (2611+626) employees had exercised the option to be under CPF. Out of these 3237 employees, by virtue of further extensions granted by the University, about 2469 employees exercised the reverse option and opted to 'come over' to GPF, leaving only 768 (3237-2469) employees to be under CPF. The answers to queries 'd' and 'e' given by the University in its affidavit indicate that the number of employees in CPF Scheme was 86 while the petitioners in Shashi Kiran batch were 75. We are, thus, concerned with 75 original petitioners in Shashi Kiran batch of cases. 24. In Krishena Kumar, the distinction between the Provident Fund Scheme and the Pension Scheme was considered by the Constitution Bench of this Court. In that case, the employees who had joined the service on or after 1.4.1957 were to get covered automatically by the Pension Scheme and insofar as employees who were already in service on 1.4.1957, they were given an option either to retain the Provident Fund benefits or to switchover to the pensionary benefits. About 12 extensions were thereafter granted so that the options could be exercised by the employees within the extended time. Those who had chosen not to exercise such option, were before this Court. The basic nature of the Scheme was discussed in paragraph 7 of the decision as under : ''7. We may now examine these options. About 12 extensions were thereafter granted so that the options could be exercised by the employees within the extended time. Those who had chosen not to exercise such option, were before this Court. The basic nature of the Scheme was discussed in paragraph 7 of the decision as under : ''7. We may now examine these options. The Railway Board's letter No. F(E) 50-RTI/6 dated November 16, 1957 introduced the pension scheme for railway servants. It said that the President had been pleased to decide that the pension rules, as liberalised vide Railway Board's Memo No. E-48 OPC-208 dated July 8, 1950 as amended or clarified from time to time should apply ''(a) to all Railway servants who entered service on or after issue of that letter and (b) to all non-pensionable railway servants who were in service on April 1, 1957 or have joined railway service between that date and the date of issue of the order''. The Railway servants referred to in para (b) were required to exercise an unconditional and unambiguous option on the prescribed form on or before March 31, 1958 electing for the pensionary benefits or retaining their existing retirement benefits under the State Railway Provident Fund Rules. It further said that any such employee from whom an option form prescribed for the employee's option was not received within the above time limit or whose option was incomplete or conditional or ambiguous shall be deemed to have opted for the pensionary benefits and if any such employee had died by that date or on or after April 1, 1957 without exercising option for the pensionary scheme, his dues would be paid on the provident fund system. The period of validity of this option was first extended up to June 30, 1958, December 31, 1958, March 31, 1959 and lastly up to September 30, 1959. There could, therefore, be no doubt that those who did not opt for the pension scheme had ample opportunity to choose between the two.'' 25. Reliance was placed by the petitioners before this Court on the decision in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India. Paragraphs 16, 29 and 30 of the decision in Krishena Kumar dealt with the issue as under : ''16. Reliance was placed by the petitioners before this Court on the decision in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India. Paragraphs 16, 29 and 30 of the decision in Krishena Kumar dealt with the issue as under : ''16. As the basis or justification for striking or reading down paragraph 3.1 on Nakara ratio, it is urged that all the Railway employees numbering about 22 lakhs comprising 16,22,000 in service and about 6 lakhs pensioners constitute one family and must be treated as one class as the Government's obligation to look after the retired Railway employees both under the pension scheme and the provident fund scheme being the same, they could not be treated differently. Any differential treatment will be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In Nakara case the date arbitrarily chosen was struck down and as a result the revised formula for computing pension was made applicable to all the retired pensioners. The same principle, it is urged, has to be extended to the Provident Fund retirees also otherwise there would be discrimination. It is stated that though at the time of choosing between Provident Fund and Pension Scheme both the alternatives appeared to be more or less equal and the retired provident funders took their lump sum yet subsequently stage by stage the pensioners' benefits were increased in such ways and to such extent that it became more and more discriminatory against the provident funders old and new. It was because of this discrimination that successive options were given by the Railway Board for the provident funders to become pensioners. Hence the submission that this limitation must go, and all the provident funders must be deemed to have become pensioners subject to the condition that the Government contribution received by them alongwith interest thereon is refunded or adjusted. Obviously this gives no importance to the condition in the notifications that option once exercised shall be final and binding and to the fact that in each option a cut-off date was there related to the purpose of giving that option. *** *** *** 29. The Court in Nakara was not satisfied with the explanation that the legislation had defined the class with clarity and precision and it would not be the function of this Court to enlarge the class. The Court held in paragraph 65 of the report : (SCC pp. *** *** *** 29. The Court in Nakara was not satisfied with the explanation that the legislation had defined the class with clarity and precision and it would not be the function of this Court to enlarge the class. The Court held in paragraph 65 of the report : (SCC pp. 344-45, para 65) ''With the expanding horizons of socio-economic justice, the Socialist Republic and Welfare State which we endeavour to set up and largely influenced by the fact that the old men who retired when emoluments were comparatively low and are exposed to vagaries of continuously rising prices, the falling value of the rupee consequent upon inflationary inputs, we are satisfied that by introducing an arbitrary eligibility criterion : ''being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date'' for being eligible for the liberalised pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class, the classification being not based on any discernible rational principle and having been found wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved by grant of liberalised pension and the eligibility criteria devised being thoroughly arbitrary, we are of the view that the eligibility for liberalised pension scheme of 'being in service on the specified date and retiring subsequent to that date' in impugned memoranda, Exs. P-1 and P-2, violates Article 14 and is unconstitutional and is struck down. Both the memoranda shall be enforced and implemented as read down as under : In other words, Ex. P-1, the words : ''that in respect of the Government servants who were in service on March 31, 1979 and retiring from service on or after that date'; and in Ex. P-2, the words : 'the new rates of pension are effective from April 1, 1979 and will be applicable to all service officers who became/become non-effective on or after that date' are unconstitutional and are struck down with this specification that the date mentioned therein will be relevant as being one from which the liberalised pension scheme becomes operative to all pensioners governed by 1972 Rules irrespective of the date of retirement. Omitting the unconstitutional part it is declared that all pensioners governed by the 1972 Rules and Army Pension Regulations shall be entitled to pension as computed under the liberalised pension scheme from the specified date, irrespective of the date of retirement. Omitting the unconstitutional part it is declared that all pensioners governed by the 1972 Rules and Army Pension Regulations shall be entitled to pension as computed under the liberalised pension scheme from the specified date, irrespective of the date of retirement. Arrears of pension prior to the specified date as per fresh computation is not admissible.'' 30. Thus the Court treated the pension retirees only as a homogeneous class. The PF retirees were not in mind. The Court also clearly observed that while so reading down it was not dealing with any fund and there was no question of the same cake being divided amongst larger number of the pensioners than would have been under the notification with respect to the specified date. All the pensioners governed by the 1972 Rules were treated as a class because payment of pension was a continuing obligation on the part of the State till the death of each of the pensioners and, unlike the case of Contributory Provident Fund, there was no question of a fund in liberalising pension.'' 26. The distinction between two Schemes was dealt with in Paragraph 32 of the decision as under : ''32. In Nakara it was never held that both the pension retirees and the PF retirees formed a homogeneous class and that any further classification among them would be violative of Article 14. On the other hand the Court clearly observed that it was not dealing with the problem of a 'fund'. The Railway Contributory Provident Fund is by definition a fund. Besides, the Government's obligation towards an employee under CPF Scheme to give the matching contribution begins as soon as his account is opened and ends with his retirement when his rights qua the Government in respect of the Provident Fund is finally crystallized and thereafter no statutory obligation continues. Whether there still remained a moral obligation is a different matter. On the other hand under the Pension Scheme the Government's obligation does not begin until the employee retires when only it begins and it continues till the death of the employee. Thus, on the retirement of an employee Government's legal obligation under the Provident Fund account ends while under the Pension Scheme it begins. The rules governing the Provident Fund and its contribution are entirely different from the rules governing pension. Thus, on the retirement of an employee Government's legal obligation under the Provident Fund account ends while under the Pension Scheme it begins. The rules governing the Provident Fund and its contribution are entirely different from the rules governing pension. It would not, therefore, be reasonable to argue that what is applicable to the pension retirees must also equally be applicable to PF retirees. This being the legal position the rights of each individual PF retiree finally crystallized on his retirement whereafter no continuing obligation remained while, on the other hand, as regard Pension retirees, the obligation continued till their death. The continuing obligation of the State in respect of pension retirees is adversely affected by fall in rupee value and rising prices which, considering the corpus already received by the PF retirees they would not be so adversely affected ipso facto. It cannot, therefore, be said that it was the ratio decidendi in Nakara that the State's obligation towards its PF retirees must be the same as that towards the pension retirees. An imaginary definition of obligation to include all the Government retirees in a class was not decided and could not form the basis for any classification for the purpose of this case. Nakara cannot, therefore, be an authority for this case.'' 27. Having observed that the Pension Scheme and the Provident Fund Scheme were structurally different, it was then concluded that the retirees in both categories did not belong to the same class and that there was no discrimination. The challenge was, therefore, rejected. 28. At this stage we must also consider that in Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. Dwarka Prasad Koolwal and others, a Bench of two Judges of this Court found that an employee had no inherent right to demand extension for exercising the switchover option. It was observed : ''58. When the Pension Regulations and the GPF Scheme are read together, the necessary conclusion is that an employee must give his option for either continuing to be a member of the CPF Scheme or to switch over to the Pension and GPF Scheme. This option had to be exercised within a period of 90 days from the cut-off date, that is, 28-11-1988. This option had to be exercised within a period of 90 days from the cut-off date, that is, 28-11-1988. But RSEB, in its wisdom, chose to extend the time for exercising the switch-over option over a period of 8 years by giving several opportunities to the employees through its notices. The right of an employee to switch over was, therefore, limited in time by the Pension and GPF Scheme. However, administrative orders issued by RSEB from time to time extended the period for exercising the option. No employee had any inherent right to either demand an extension of the period for exercising the switch-over option or claim a right to exercise the switch-over option at any time prior to his retirement, and no such right has been shown to us.'' 29. Krishena Kumar was a case where the retirees from two categories namely Pension Fund and Provident Fund, were taken to be distinct and different and as such the plea on the ground of discrimination was rejected. As the Judgment of the Division Bench discloses, the matter was considered by it from the standpoint of discrimination between the same category of persons, that is to say, those who had opted to be under CPF. The different groups in the same category were : (a) Those who had not exercised any option but continued to make payment of contribution towards CPF (R.K. Virmani batch of cases). (b) Those who exercised the option to be under CPF but the option was exercised after the cut-off. Since the option was exercised after the cut-off, they were deemed to have 'come over' to GPF and were granted benefit (N.C. Bakshi batch of cases). (c) Those who consciously exercised the option to be under CPF; but taking advantage of further options granted through 11 extensions to switchover, had been allowed to 'come over' to GPF (2469 employees). 30. It was against these three sub categories coming from the same category of employees that the argument of discrimination was considered by the Division Bench. Such was not the case in Krishena Kumar or Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran. 31. The matter was further considered by the Division Bench in the context of the employees of educational institutions such as IITs, who are directly under the Central Government, just as the employees of the University, which is a Central University. Such was not the case in Krishena Kumar or Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran. 31. The matter was further considered by the Division Bench in the context of the employees of educational institutions such as IITs, who are directly under the Central Government, just as the employees of the University, which is a Central University. If the option was allowed to be exercised by granting extension to the employees of the other educational institutions, the Division Bench did not find any reason why similar choice/option could not be given to the employees in Shashi Kiran batch of cases. 32. Additionally, the feature that has been presented through the documents which have subsequently come on record is that even with respect to the employees of Insurance Corporations similar options and extensions were granted. 33. The differential treatment afforded to those 2469 employees as against the employees in Shashi Kiran batch of cases, was not founded on any rationale. No justifiable reason was coming forth. If those 2469 employees could be afforded chance to exercise an option of switchover to GPF, even though they had consciously opted to be under CPF, on principle of parity or equality, the case was certainly made out. 34. We may now consider the matter from the perspective of financial impact if the decision of the Division Bench is affirmed. 35. According to the notification dated 1.5.1987, the employees joining the service after 1.1.1986 would always be under GPF. With respect to those who were in service on 1.1.1986, said employees would be deemed to have 'come over' to GPF unless an option to continue to be under CPF was consciously exercised before the cut-off date. Thus, when the Scheme was framed and was sought to be implemented, the concerned authorities must have taken into account the entire magnitude such as, the number of employees and the likelihood of impact on the management of the fund, so that reasonable returns can be effected by way of pension upon retirement of such persons. Going by the intent of the notification, those who were to opt for CPF, were an exception and the general rule was that everybody after 1.1.1986 would normally be covered by GPF. It is in this context that the number of original petitioners in Shashi Kiran batch of cases has to be seen. We are concerned with only 75 persons. Going by the intent of the notification, those who were to opt for CPF, were an exception and the general rule was that everybody after 1.1.1986 would normally be covered by GPF. It is in this context that the number of original petitioners in Shashi Kiran batch of cases has to be seen. We are concerned with only 75 persons. On the other hand, the bulk of people namely 2469 employees were granted the choice of reverse switchover and they were allowed all the benefits under GPF. It can reasonably be said that when the notification dated 1.5.1987 was issued, the authorities were conscious of the possibility that all the employees may 'come over' to GPF. With that possibility in mind, the fund was constituted and the affairs were arranged. The shift of those 75 employees would not in any way affect the strength and the character of the fund if a direction that the entire contribution made by the authorities be returned with reasonable rate of interest is issued. These 75 petitioners had approached the Court in the year 2010. At this length of time, it is not as if any floodgates are going to open and there will be drain on the resources of the State. A direction can, therefore, be issued, as was done by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 20 of his Judgment in R.N. Virmani batch of cases and which aspect was mentioned in the letter dated 23.1.2017 referred to in paragraph 8 hereinabove, for recouping the contribution under CPF with 8% simple interest per annum. 36. Considering the circumstances on record, in our view, the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court in Shashi Kiran batch of cases does not call for any interference except to the extent of direction for recouping of the contribution under CPF with 8% simple interest per annum. It is possible that at this length of time, some of the employees in Shashi Kiran batch of cases may not be interested in switchover to GPF. But an option must be afforded to them in such manner as the authorities deem appropriate. 37. All these appeals are therefore disposed of in aforestated terms, with no order as to costs.'' (Emphasis added) 13. But an option must be afforded to them in such manner as the authorities deem appropriate. 37. All these appeals are therefore disposed of in aforestated terms, with no order as to costs.'' (Emphasis added) 13. From the discussion as has been held by Supreme Court dealing with the Shashi Kiran batch of cases, it clearly emerges out that when employees of such institution as petitioner's institution, the general rule was that all the employees under the CPF Scheme were directed to be govern under the GPF Scheme except those who consciously opted for CPF Scheme before the cut off dated 30.9.1987, there arose an issue for those who switched over from GPF to CPF Scheme, I would call it a reverse switching and those who exercised option for GPF scheme by administrative order by the respective institutions after the cut off date. The ratio of the judgment in Shashi Kiran's case (Supra) is, switching over to GPF or not, all those in CPF Scheme became member of GPF Scheme automatically and so all such employees who did not opt for a change prior to 1987, should be taken to have become member of GPF Scheme on principle of 'deemed switch over' a fiction created by asking for option to remain in CPF Scheme. Now it has to be seen as to whether this fiction of 'deemed switch over' shall apply to the case in hand. Now in order to find answer to the above question it is to be seen what options were available to the petitioners in their institutions and whether petitioners had ever opted for CPF Scheme before or after cut off date i.e. 13.9.1987. If no options were available then deeming fiction would apply as there was no option to go for GPF, and instead, it was a reverse option that was made available. All those were made to be governed under 1972 rules irrespective of the date of retirement. The Court also considered the aspect of consistent fall in rupee value and the rates of interest upon a corpus that may be received by a retired employee under the C.P.F. scheme. The judgment of the Division Bench since has been upheld by the Supreme Court I find the principle of crystal ball emerging through the judgment at that point of time to be very genuine principle to make this benefit available to all the employees. The judgment of the Division Bench since has been upheld by the Supreme Court I find the principle of crystal ball emerging through the judgment at that point of time to be very genuine principle to make this benefit available to all the employees. Petitioners before this Court are only three in numbers and while two retired during pendency of this petition, one had already retired on the date of presentation of this writ petition. Thus two petitioners were in service when the judgment of the Supreme Court had intervened. The principle upon which Shashi Kiran batch has been given benefit to switch over from C.P.F. scheme to G.P.G. cum Pension scheme even on filing of the writ petition in year 2010 while the last offer was made in the year 2003 only, can be made applicable to the case in hand as well. Shashi Kiran batch employees had consciously opted for C.P.F. Scheme even before the last cut-off date as petitioners herein. 14. In the present case, the respondents-Union of India/Central Government, in my considered view, were certainly not justified in refusing to consider the claim in the year 1999 by writing back to the Sansthan that no such scheme to switch over was available any more. The third respondent is very well funded by the Central Government and the contributions have been made by the Central Government under the C.P.F. scheme. The petitioners though have received the same but would certainly be refunding back at the same rate of interest as has been directed by the Supreme Court in its judgment (supra). It is claimed that no other employee of the Hindi Sansthan falls in this category and if their claims are accepted that will not open any flood gates of litigations. 15. In the circumstances, therefore, I find good reasons to allow this petition and give benefits of old pension scheme to the petitioners. In so far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he though had retired already but had of course moved an application to permit him to switch over from C.P.F. scheme to G.P.F. cum Pension scheme in the year 1999 and then in 2013 itself and recommendations were made sometime much before his retirement. Although his case could have fallen in the category of those cases where one can say that not much protest was made in accepting the funds etc. Although his case could have fallen in the category of those cases where one can say that not much protest was made in accepting the funds etc. under the C.P.F. scheme at the time of retirement, but in view of the fact that in Shashi Kiran batch of cases Supreme Court had allowed petition even for retired employees subject to refund of fund obtained by them with 8 per cent interest to cover up the financial loss that otherwise Government may suffer in giving pension under the old pension scheme, I do find justification to allow this benefit to petitioner No. 1 as well. 16. In view of the above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to convert petitioners' C.P.F. scheme to G.P.F. cum Pension scheme. The fund that has been received under the C.P.F. scheme shall be refunded by the petitioner except their own share of contribution at the rate of 8 per cent simple interest as has been directed by the Supreme Court in its judgment (supra). They will be furnishing an affidavit of this undertaking and thereafter the respondents shall fix the time limit or any other modality to receive refund from the petitioners. 17. It is made clear that this will be one time opportunity and if the petitioners fail to pay back the contribution with 8 percent interest per annum as per modality prescribed for, no further opportunity will be afforded for the same and petitioners will have to remain satisfied with whatever they have gained under the C.P.F. Scheme.