https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282835 The Supreme Court held that the respondent could not switch to the pension scheme after a long delay of 22 years, having consciously chosen not to exercise the option during service. The Court emphasized the need to adhere to specified timelines and avoid unjust double benefits. Criticizing the Tribunal's direction to consider the representation, the Court highlighted that stale issues should not be revived, rejecting the respondent's claim due to significant delay. The Court also clarified that equality principles do not apply negatively, barring claims based on irregularly granted benefits. The appeal was allowed, dismissing the respondent's application and reinforcing timely exercise of options and rejection of stale claims. en-us Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Oct 2023 12:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282835 The Supreme Court held that the respondent could not switch to the pension scheme after a long delay of 22 years, having consciously chosen not to exercise the option during service. The Court emphasized the need to adhere to specified timelines and avoid unjust double benefits. Criticizing the Tribunal's direction to consider the representation, the Court highlighted that stale issues should not be revived, rejecting the respondent's claim due to significant delay. The Court also clarified that equality principles do not apply negatively, barring claims based on irregularly granted benefits. The appeal was allowed, dismissing the respondent's application and reinforcing timely exercise of options and rejection of stale claims. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282835