Retired employees cannot belatedly exercise a lapsed option to switch from CPF to GPF schemes.

The petitioners are retired employees of the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) who superannuated between 2008 and 2020.

During their service, DVC offered several opportunities (notably in 2002) for employees to switch from the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) to the General Provident Fund (GPF) scheme.

The petitioners did not exercise this option and received all terminal dues under the CPF scheme upon retirement without objection.

In 2020, DVC issued a new memorandum for existing employees to switch schemes; however, the petitioners—now retired—submitted a legal representation in June 2022 seeking the same benefit.

Following a High Court direction in an earlier writ (WPA No. 492 of 2023) to consider their plea, the Executive Director of DVC rejected the request via a reasoned order dated May 2, 2025.

The petitioners challenged this rejection, arguing the court had previously streamlined a mode of consideration that the authority ignored.

1. Whether retired employees can be permitted to switch from a CPF scheme to a GPF scheme long after their superannuation and after the expiration of the relevant option windows.

2. Whether the principle of "continuing wrong" regarding pensionary benefits, as established in Tarsem Singh, applies to the voluntary choice of a provident fund scheme.

3. Whether the writ petition is barred by the doctrine of laches and inordinate unexplained delay.

The court applied the principle that a Writ of Mandamus requires the infringement of a clear legal or fundamental right.

The court relied on the doctrine of limitation and laches as established in State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, which holds that writ petitions filed without explaining inordinate delay must be dismissed.

The court distinguished Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, noting that a voluntary failure to exercise a scheme option does not constitute a continuing wrong like pension benefits.

The court followed Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, necessitating that facts in a writ must be supported by specific evidence and documentation.

The court reasoned that the petitioners were given fair and uniform opportunities to switch schemes while in service but voluntarily chose to remain under CPF.

By failing to exercise the option by the 2002 deadline, they effectively waived their right to the GPF scheme.

The court found that the 2020 scheme was explicitly for existing employees and that the petitioners’ first formal request in 2022—occurring up to 14 years after some retirements—was unacceptably delayed.

The court clarified that its previous order in WPA No. 492 of 2023 was merely a direction for "consideration" and did not create a mandatory entitlement or a "guideline" to grant the benefit.

Unlike Tarsem Singh, which involved a categorical entitlement to pension, this case involved a policy-based shift in schemes with significant financial implications for the employer, meaning the court cannot compel the revival of a lapsed scheme.

It further held that the petition was liable to be dismissed on the grounds of unexplained, inordinate delay.

The court concluded that it cannot issue a Mandamus to revive a lapsed scheme or grant special benefits to retirees who missed prescribed deadlines; the writ petition was dismissed without costs.