Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Baby M.V vs Union Of India Represented By Its ... on 3 October, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A. NOs. 1060/2011
Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2012
C O R A M
HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Baby M.V , Headmistress, Kendriya Vidyalaya
Kadavanthra, Cochin - 20, Permanent Address
Thachedath House, Meempara P.O
Puthencruz Via, Ernakulam - 682 308
- Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. Shiji P.Abraham)
Vs.
1 Union of India represented by its Secretary
Ministry of Human Resources Development
Department of Secondary and Higher Education
(Integrated Finance Division), Sastri Bhavan, New Delhi
2 Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangetham
18, Institutional Area,
New Delhi - 110 016 - through its Joint Commissioner
3 The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
18 - Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg
New Delhi - 110 016
4 Regional Grievance Officer, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangetham
Regional Office, III Campus, Chennai - 600 036
5 The Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kadavanthra,
Cochin - 682 020
- Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.George Joseph for R1 and M/s Iyer & Iyer for R 2-5)
The application having been heard on 03.10.12, the Tribunal
delivered the following:
O R D E R
HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant challenges the rejection of her request to enroll her in General Provident Fund cum Pension Sheme in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.
2 Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are that she is presently working as Headmistress at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kadavanthara, after she was initially appointed as Teacher on 30.1.1980. She is to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2012. She was a beneficiary of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPF, for short). By Memorandum, Annx.A3, the respondents introduced General Provident Fund Scheme (GPF, for brevity) to its employees who are on the rolls of KVS as on 1.1.1986. As per the Scheme, those who are covered under the CPF Scheme would automatically come over to the GPF cum Pension Scheme on and w.e.f 1.1.1986 except where a government servant opts to remain as CPF beneficiary. It is averred that while issuing Annx.A3, as per the then existing rule for getting full pension the employee will have to complete 33 years of service. Since the total service to her credit would be less than 33 years on the date of superannuation and she did not fully understand the new GPF cum Pension Scheme, she opted for CPF. She says that the Sixth Central Pay Commission had reduced the 33 years of qualifying service to 20 years of service for full pension by Annx.A4. Immediately on receipt of Annx.A4, the applicant represented through proper channel to switchover to GPF cum Pension Scheme, by Annx.A5. She further averred that the Govt of India had granted provision for fresh option from CPF to GPF to similarly situated employees in various organisations including Navodaya Vidyalaya Samithi, etc. Various representations submitted to switchover to GPF Scheme cum Pension did not yield any positive result and rejected. Therefore, this O.A. 3 The respondents contested the OA by filing reply. In their reply it is submitted that prior to 1986 the employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan had an option to be member of CPF Scheme or GPF cum Pension Scheme. All employees who joined the Sangathan on or after 1.1.1986 but before 1.1.2004 are governed under the GPF cum Pension Scheme. The new Contributory Pension Scheme will be applicable to those who joined on or after 1.1.2004.Thus all the employees as on 1.1.1986 who were members of CPF Scheme, were given an opportunity to exercise a fresh option to continue in the CPF Scheme if they so desire, failing which they will be covered under GPF cum Pension Scheme. Thereafter Ministry of Human Resource Development by letter dated 22.2.2006, Annx.R2(a) issued instruction not to permit any employee to switch over from CPF to GPF cum Pension Scheme. They further submitted that when an employee gives the option form for CPF or GPF, the same is filed in the Personal File after making an entry to this effect in the Service Book under attestation of Principal and a copy is pasted in the last page of the Service Book. The applicant was a CPF optee and continued to be a CPF optee all these years. At no point of time the applicant objected to contribute towards CPF Scheme.
4 Rejoinder was filed reiterating the facts as stated in the OA 5 Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6 Going by Annx.A3 notification, it can be seen that the general rule is that every employee will come under the pension scheme unless one opts to continue under the CPF Scheme. Further, such option should be in writing and reach the office by 31.1.1989. In this case the applicant admitted that since the total service to her credit would be less than 33 years on the date of superannuation and did not fully understand the new GPF cum Pension Scheme, she again opted for CPF. The counsel for the applicant produced the Service Book to show that the option to continue in CPF is not noted in the Service Book. In view of the admission of the applicant about her exercising the option to continuein CPF, the omission on the part of the respondents to make a note in the Service Book does not come to her rescue. The respondents in their reply submitted that Ministry of Human Resource Development by letter dated 22.2.2006, Annx.R2(a) issued instruction not to permit any employee to switch over from CPF to GPF cum Pension Scheme. The applicant submitted her first representation, only after the VI CPC recommendation was implemented The respondents have cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2876/2007, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Smt.Jaspal Kaur, where it was held that merely because the original document relating to exercise of option was not produced that should not be a ground to ignore the ample materials produced to show exercise of the option. Resultantly the Civil Appeal was allowed.
7 In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the applicant has failed to establish a case in her favour. I, therefore, dismiss the O.A. No costs.
Dated 3rd October, 2012
K. NOORJEHAN
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
kkj