Telangana High Court
T.Girija Manik vs Union Of India on 25 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN
WRIT PETITION No.34062 OF 2025
ORDER:
This Writ Petition assails the order dated 12.06.2025
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'CAT'),
Hyderabad, in O.A.No.21/1485/2015, whereby the Tribunal
dismissed the Original Application (for short 'O.A') filed by the
petitioner. The petitioner had filed the subject O.A. seeking a
direction to be covered under the pension scheme instead of
Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme, contending that
under the Office Memorandum (O.M) dated 01.05.1987 she was
deemed to have come over/switched to the pension scheme as
per 4th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations, as she
never exercised any option to remain in CPF before 30.09.1987.
2. Heard Sri K.Ram Murthy, learned counsel for the
petitioner; Sri B.Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor
General of India on behalf of Sri N Bhujanga Rao, learned
Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondents and
perused the record.
Factual Matrix (in brief)
3. The factual background, necessary for the adjudication of
the present writ petition, is as follows:
i) Smt.T Girija Manik (for short 'writ petitioner') joined the
service in the year 1981 and was confirmed in 1986 and
has explicitly opted for the CPF scheme.
ii) Following the 4th Central Pay Commission, the
Government of India issued an Office Memorandum on
01.05.1987, stating that all CPF beneficiaries in service as
of 01.05.1987 would be deemed to have come over to the
pension scheme, unless they exercised a positive option to
retain CPF by 30.09.1987.
iii) The petitioner claims that since she did not submit a
written option to continue in the CPF by the deadline, she
must be automatically deemed to have switched over to
the pension scheme. However, the respondents contend
that the petitioner's service book contains an entry, made
post-deadline, stating she "opted to retain CPF," and that
she continued to contribute to and receive benefits from
the CPF account until her superannuation.
iv) The petitioner claims to have made several
representations to the respondents to bring her under the
pension scheme which were rejected. She filed an O.A.
before the CAT, Hyderabad, which was dismissed. The
CAT relied on a precedent where it held that employees
who consciously enjoyed CPF benefits cannot be allowed
belatedly to seek switch over from CPF scheme to pension
scheme.
v) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging
the Tribunal's order.
Contentions on behalf of the petitioner
i) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, in
terms of the O.M. dated 01.05.1987, a statutory
deeming fiction was created whereby all CPF
beneficiaries in service as on the date of issuance of
the O.M. would automatically stand brought under the
pension scheme unless they expressly opted to
continue under the CPF before 30.09.1987. Since the
petitioner did not submit any written option retaining
the CPF Scheme within the prescribed period, the
petitioner asserts that by operation of the said deeming
provision, the petitioner has to be treated as having
come over to the pension scheme.
ii) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
the present case is squarely covered by the order of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) Nos.28825-
28827/2017 arising from the Madras High Court in
Union of India v. S. Subbaiah and others 1, where
similarly situated employees in the Department of
Atomic Energy were granted the benefit of the pension
scheme.
iii) The learned counsel contends that the action of the
respondents is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution, inasmuch as similarly situated
scientific and technical personnel were permitted to
exercise a belated option to come over to the Pension
Scheme, whereas the same benefit has been unjustly
denied to the petitioner without any rational basis.
iv) It is contended also that any service-book entry
recorded after 30.09.1987, indicating that the
petitioner opted to continue under the CPF Scheme, is
devoid of legal sanctity, as the belated endorsement
cannot defeat or supersede the deeming effect of the
Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987.
Contentions on behalf of the respondents
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, in
unison, contended as under:
W.P.Nos.28092 of 2015 and batch dated 05.01.2017
i) That the petitioner had consciously opted for the CPF
Scheme in 1986 and, even after issuance of the O.M.
dated 01.05.1987, expressly reaffirmed her decision to
remain under CPF, as reflected in the
contemporaneous entry in her service book. The
petitioner having continued to contribute to and enjoy
the benefits of the CPF Scheme throughout her service
and at the time of her retirement, cannot now seek to
resile from her own choice.
ii) That the judgement of the Madras High Court in
S. Subbaiah's case (supra 1) relied upon by the
petitioner, is concerned with the employees who had
not exercised any option whatsoever. However, in the
present case the petitioner had affirmatively and
voluntarily opted for the CPF Scheme, rendering the
precedent inapplicable to her case, as evident from her
service book.
iii) That the petitioner's claim of seeking to be covered
under the pension scheme is belated, as the
petitioner's option was concluded long ago, and
repeated representations do not extend the period of
limitation or revive a stale cause of action.
4. We have given our anxious considerations to the
submissions and perused the record, including the judgment of
the Madras High Court in S. Subbaiah's case (supra 1).
Analysis and Reasoning:
5. The cornerstone of the scheme introduced in 1987-88 was
the provision of a conscious choice to the employees. The
petitioner has consciously and voluntarily exercised her option
in writing to continue under the CPF Scheme. The terms of the
Office Memorandum were clear and unambiguous that the
option was final. Having made a calculated choice and reaped
the benefits of CPF Scheme throughout his career and at the
time of retirement, she cannot now be permitted to resile from
that position decades later. In this regard, the principle of
estoppel and waiver squarely applies to the facts of this case.
6. In the present case the petitioner's claim stands vitiated by
an inordinate and wholly unexplained delay, as the cause of
action had crystallised in 1987-88, when the relevant entry was
made in her service book and she continued to contribute and
enjoy benefits, without protest, under the CPF Scheme. Further,
the doctrine of laches would apply to the present case. Granting
relief in such a stale claim would set a dangerous precedent,
unsettling long-closed financial transactions and would open
the flood gates of similar stale claims.
7. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner's claim rests entirely
upon the so-called 'deemed option' contemplated under the
O.M. dated 01.05.1987, which by its very nature, operates only
where the employee has taken no affirmative step. In the
present case, the respondents contended before the CAT of clear
and contemporaneous evidence that the petitioner had, in fact,
exercised a positive option to remain under the CPF Scheme, as
reflected in the duly recorded entry in her service book. The
relevant portion of the order of the CAT is extracted hereunder:
4. The respondents further contended that in response to the
DP&PW's OM dated 01.05.1987 and further communication vide
DAE OM No.1/1/13)/87-Admn.Il dated 23.09.1987, an entry has
been made in the Service Book stating that" Opted to retain CPF
benefits in terms of O.M. No.1/1(13)/87-Adm.1 dt. 23.09.1987. In
addition, it is revealed from the Accounts data i.e., yearly
statements of provident fund that the Applicant is under CPF. The
Applicant herein by taking the cognizance of the aforesaid OMs
dated 01.05.1987 & 23.09.1987, consciously, exercised the option
to retain CPF benefits, which is seen from the Service Book of the
Applicant and which was beneficial at that time and now alleging
that since she did not exercise any option against the above
referred OMs and hence deemed to have come under pension
scheme is not tenable. Therefore, the respondents prayed for the
dismissal of the O.A.
Significantly, the petitioner never questioned or disputed this
entry at any time during her service and also did not controvert
the stand of the respondents taken before the CAT. In these
circumstances, the legal fiction of a deemed switch to the
pension scheme stands excluded, and the petitioner's
contention founded thereon cannot be sustained.
8. Further, the petitioner's reliance on the judgment of the
Madras High Court in S. Subbaiah's case (supra 1) is
distinguishable as the factual foundation of that judgment
stands in stark contrast to the present case. It is evident from a
careful reading of the said Judgment, that the employees
therein had not exercised any option within the original or
extended period. They were true 'default cases', thereby
attracting the deeming fiction under the O.M. dated 01.05.1987,
which treated such passive employees as having come over to
the pension scheme. However, in the instant case the petitioner
had consciously opted for the CPF Scheme in 1986, and the
contemporaneous service-book entry indicates that she
reaffirmed this choice even after issuance of the 1987 O.M.,
which remained unquestioned throughout petitioner's career.
Therefore, the ratio of S. Subbaiah's case (supra 1) is wholly
inapplicable to the petitioner's case.
9. The petitioner in the present writ petition is essentially
seeking to quash the order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal. The decision of the Tribunal is based on the facts of
delay, estoppel, waiver and acquiescence is a plausible and legal
one. The order of the CAT does not suffer from any perversity or
error of law that warrants the interference of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
10. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this Writ
Petition. The order of the Tribunal is legal, just and equitable
and does not call for any interference. The petitioner's reliance
on the Madras High Court judgment in S. Subbaiah's case
(supra 1) is insufficient to overcome the significant hurdles of a
conscious, final option exercised by the petitioner and the
inordinate and unexplained delay in the present case.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
G.M. MOHIUDDIN, J
Date: 25.11.2025
ssp
