Mandatory option period for counting past service under pension rules failed where the employee did not comply with statutory conditions.

The statutory option to count past service for pensionary benefits was mandatory because it required an employee to act within a fixed one-year period and the statute attached a deeming consequence for non-compliance. The scheme gave a choice between retaining prior retiral benefits or depositing them with interest to seek counting of past service, and a directory reading was rejected because it would defeat the deeming clause. The employee's earlier election under a pension scheme did not amount to a valid option for past-service counting, and no timely deposit was made. The transfer-of-service conditions were also unmet because the employee had resigned, had a long break in service, and lacked the required channel and consent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the time limit for exercising the option to count past service for pensionary benefits under the University statute was mandatory, and whether the respondent was entitled to have his past service counted despite not exercising the prescribed option and not satisfying the conditions relating to transfer of service.

Analysis: The statutory scheme gave an employee who had already received retiral benefits from a previous employer two choices: either retain those benefits and forgo counting of past service, or deposit the benefits with interest and seek counting of past service. The statute further provided a one-year period for exercising that option and attached a deeming consequence if no option was exercised within time. The provision was construed as mandatory because it was framed as a private obligation to be performed within a specified time and because the statute itself specified the consequence of non-compliance. A directory construction was rejected as it would render the deeming clause ineffective and make the provision otiose. The respondent's earlier option related only to a pension scheme and did not amount to an option for counting past service, and no timely deposit of retiral benefits was made. The conditions applicable to transfer of service were also not met, since the respondent had resigned, had a long break in service, and had not moved through the required channel with the previous employer's consent.

Conclusion: The time-limit provision was mandatory, the respondent did not validly exercise the required option, and he was not entitled to count his past service for pensionary benefits.

---