A.P. Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This application under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was originally filed by one Ganesh Chandra Banerjee against the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, Eastern Railway and four others. During the pendency of the case Ganesh Chandra Banerjee died and his legal representatives were substituted in his place.
(2.) It is the case of the original applicant that after discharging his duties as a Railway employee for more than 39 years he retired from service on superannuation on and from 1.9.71. The said applicant was covered by the State Railway Provident Fund (Contributory) Benefits Scheme. On 21.9.68 Railway Board issued a Circular to the effect that Railway Servants retaining the SRPF (Contributory) Benefit and quitting the service on or after 1 5.68 or who had already retired would be able to opt for the Liberalized Railway Pension Rules including the benefits of Family Pension Scheme for Railway Employees, 1968 as amended from time to time It was mentioned in that Circular that option to that effect should by exercised by 31.12.68. It was further mentioned that the Railway Employees who had already retired from service but retaining the SRPF (Contributory) Rules would be able to exercise their options in that regard provided they are agreeable to refund the entire Government contribution and the excess, if any, of special contribution to Provident Fund received by them over the DCRG due to them under pension rules. It is stated in the application that the original applicant could not exercise such option as the contents of that Circular did not come to his notice. Again by an Order issued on 31.7.74 the Railway Board issued a similar Circular permitting the Railway Servant retaining the SRPF (Contributory) Benefits to opt for Liberalized Railway Pension Rules including the benefits of Family Pension Scheme for Railway Employees only to those who were in service on 1.1.73 and to those who had retired from service on or after that date. The said applicant submitted representation to the concerned Authority for coming under the Liberalized Railway Pension Rules but his representation was not accepted. On 18.6.85 the Railway Board gave another opportunity to Railway Staff to come under the Liberalized Pension Scheme including Family Pension Scheme who were in service on 31.3.85. The original applicant made another representation to respondent No. 5 for permitting him to come under that scheme agreeing to refund the amount to the Railway which were liable to be refunded by him. No reply to the said representation or two subsequent reminders was given to him. It is stated in the application that in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court, the respondent Authority or the Railway Board could not make any classification between Railway Servants on the basing of their - dates of retirement and if such classification is made that would be violative - of Articles 14, 38, 39 & 41 of the Constitution. In filing the application the applicant prayed far passing an Order so that he could come under the Liberalized Railway Pension Rules including the benefits of Family Pension Scheme for Railway Employees.
(3.) The application has been contested by the respondents. It is the case of the respondents that the original applicant was in service till 31.8.71 and as he had not exercised: any option to come under the Liberalized Pension Scheme in view of the Railway Board Circular issued in 1968 he could not avail of that benefit. The respondents state that the representations submitted by the applicant were duly considered and rejected. It is the version of the respondents that the recent decision of the Supreme Court passed in a case not connected with the matter in dispute has no manner of application to the claim of the applicant.;