- (1.) This appeal is directed again1.st the order dated 22.4.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a proceeding registered as C.W.P. No.2314 of 2008. By the aforesaid order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner challenging an order dated 14.11.2007 (Annexure-P.4 therein) passed by Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, whereby the request of the petitioner for switching over from the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to the Pension Scheme had been rejected.
(2.) The appellant-writ petitioner, at the relevant time, was working as a Professor of Chemistry in the University in question. Earlier the employees of the University were covered by a Central Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. In the year 1993, a Pension Scheme was introduced w.e.f. 1.1.1992 and all employees including the appellantpetitioner were given an option to continue with the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme or to switch over to the Pension Scheme, as may be desired. The appellant-petitioner exercised his option on 15.5.1993 to continue under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. Thereafter, two more chances were given to the employees to indicate their option to switch over vide memos dated 10.4.1996 and 26.2.1999. On both the occasions, the appellant-petitioner did not exercise any option to switch over to the Pension Scheme. Thereafter, in the year 2001 another chance was given to the employees of the University to opt for the Pension Scheme vide memo dated 18.4.2001. This time also the appellant-petitioner did not exercise any such option.
(3.) Thereafter, the appellant-petitioner filed several representations stating that as the interest rate on the Pension Scheme was low in the year 2001 he had opted not to be governed by the Pension Scheme pursuant to the memo dated 18.4.2001. However, as the rate of interest had gone up, he now desired to opt for the Pension Scheme. Such representations of the petitioner along with other representations of several other employees formed the basis of a subsequent move on the part of the University for an additional chance to the employees to opt for the Pension Scheme which was, however, not approved by the Government. On these facts the writ petition, out of which this appeal has arisen, was filed in the year 2008 primarily contending that in terms of the memo dated 18.4.2001 (Annexure-P.1) there was necessity to get the offer of change of option from C.P.F. to Pension Scheme noted down from all employees of different departments of the University which was not done. As a result the appellant-writ petitioner was not aware of the option made available by the memo dated 18.4.2001 and, consequently, he could not exercise his option. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D akshin Haryana Bijli V itran Nigam & Others v. Bachan Singh, 2009 14 SCC 793 to contend that in a similar situation when there was a failure of the University to get the option for conversion from C.P.F. to Pension Scheme noted down by the employees, interference was made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.;