07.01.2025 Sl. No. 28 Court No.30 BM WPA 31084 of 2017 Deb Sadhan Sarkar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Tarapada Das Mr. Mahadeb Khan Ms. Jonaki Khan ... for the petitioner Mr. Pinaki Dhole Mrs. Tapati Samanta ... for the State 1. The present writ application has been preferred praying for direction upon the respondents and/or their agents to consider the application dated 05.06.2017 and the representation dated 21.08.2017 of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner’s case in short is that by a letter dated 16.04.1980 the petitioner was appointed to the post of Typist Clerk in the office of the Project Officer, Drought Phone Area Programme Agency, Purulia in the scale of pay and allowance as admissible under the agency rule. 3. The petitioner was subsequently promoted in due course. 4. The specific case of the petitioner is that after his retirement on 28.02.2007, the petitioner has received the CPF amount of final withdrawal of 2 Rs.6,40,697/-. Thereafter the petitioner made an application on 05.06.2017 to the respondent authorities in respect of conversion/switch over from CPF(Contribution Provident fund) to GPF (General Provident Fund) with pension and family pension in view of the Full Bench judgement of the Hon’ble Court in reference case No.APO No.94 of 2009 (District Inspector of Schools(S.E) Kolkata vs. Abhijit Baidya reported in CHN (CAL), Page 711, and such application was submitted on 08.06.2017 through speed post, and the respondent authority has received the same on 12.06.2017. 5. The petitioner retired on 28.02.2007 on superannuation and at the time of his retirement the petitioner received his dues as admissible on superannuation including gratuity and leave salary. 6. Admittedly, the application for switchover has been made after more than 10 years after superannuation. 7. One of the contentions of the petitioner is that there are other employees who got the benefit of switchover being on similar footing as that of the petitioner. 8. Affidavits filed by the parties are on record. 9. By way of an “exception” filed by the State of West Bengal on affidavit in respect of the 3 supplementary affidavit of the petitioner, the said respondent has stated that the petitioner did not apply for the switch over from CPF to GPF scheme during his service tenure and he made the said prayer for switch over after 10 years from the date of his retirement. 10. The State respondent has specifically stated on affidavit that other employees with whom the petitioner claims parity exercised their option for switch over within their period of service i.e. before their date of retirement. The said employees switched over from CPF to GPF after refunding their Government contribution. 11. It is thus stated that the present petitioner is not entitled to the said benefit as he has received his amount as due from CPF as there was no prayer for switch over to GPF. 12. It is further stated that such belated application if permitted will cause severe difficulty to the authority concerned to maintain proper account and a person who has slept over his right for several years is not entitled to get relief as prayed for. 13. Considering the said fact and the materials on record, this court finds that admittedly the petitioner did not exercise his right to switch over during his service period in spite of having the opportunity to do 4 so. He received his CPF dues on superannuation and after having retired for ten years he has made this prayer for switching over which in the interest of justice cannot permitted the petitioner is thus not entitled to the relief as prayed for in this petition, more so after having already received his dues under CPF 10 years prior to his application for switch over. 14. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 15. Pending applications stand disposed of. 16. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 17. Urgent Xerox certified copies of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties as expeditiously as possible, in compliance of usual formalities. ( Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. )