Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Amrit Pal vs Kvs on 23 May, 2025
1
Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No. 2108/2022
With
1477/2022, 985/2020, 1903/2019,
2792/2019, 1662/2019, 2334/2022,
2536/2021, 4036/2018, 4686/2018,
2413/2021, 3075/2021, 3687/2018,
1363/2020, 1434/2019, 2050/2019,
3630/2019, 2077/2020, 45/2019,
2355/2019, 3319/2019, 3354/2019,
& 434/2023
Reserved on: 10.03.2025.
Pronounced on: 23.05.2025.
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
1. OA No.-2108 of 2022
. Manoj Kumar, 67 years,
S/o Sh. Y.P. Singh,
Retired UDC from K.V. Andrews Ganj,
New Delhi,
R/o Flat No. D/3, House No. 148 A,
D Block, Krishna Park, Devil Road,
Khanpur, New Delhi-110062
.....Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through
The Secretary,
Ministry of Education, Govt. of India,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Through the Commissioner,
18, Institutional Area, Saheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi-110016.
3. The Assistant Comissioner (Finance),
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
18, Institutional Area, Saheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi.-110016.
2025.05.28
RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30'
2
Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
....Respondents
2. OA No. - 1477/2022
Neeta Khurana, Aged-61 Years, Group 'A') D/o
Sh Raj Mohan Sharma, Retired as Assistant
Commissioner from KVS, r/o 122, D-16, Sector
7, Rohini, New Delhi-110085.
.....Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.-01
2. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Through the Commissioner,
18, Institutional Area,
Saheed Jeet Singh Marg.
New Delhi-110016
3. The Deputy Commissioner,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Delhi Region,
JNU Campus, New Delhi-110016
4.
The Joint Commissioner(Fin.)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Delhi Region, JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110016.
....Respondents
3.OA No.985 0f 2020
Smt. Kusum Dhawan, aged 70 years
W/o Sh. A.C. Dhawan,
Retired TGT (Biology) KVS
r/o-3/341, Janakpuri, New Delhi.
.....Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resources Development,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2025.05.28
RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30'
3
Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
2. Kendariya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Through the Commissioner, 18, Institutional
Area, Shahzed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi.
3. The Finance Officer,
Kendariya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18,
Institutional Area, Shahzed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi-110016.
....Respondents
4.OA No.-1903 of 2019
1.Smt. Usha Balla, Aged-63 Years, 'B' W/o Sh.
N.L.V.S. Prakash Rao, Retired as PGT (Hindi)
from KVS R/o D.No.74-13-6/4, G/D, Prakash
Nagar, Near Round Park,
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, E.G.
Distt(A.P.) Pin-533103.
....Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India, Shastri
Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Kendariya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Through the Commissioner, 18, Institutional
Area, Saheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi.
3. The Assistant Commissioner (Finance),
Kendariya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18,
Institutional Area, Saheed Jeet singh Marg,
New Delhi-110016
....Respondents
5.OA No.-2792 of 2019
Ashish Kumar Mitra, aged 62 years, 'C'
S/o Sh. Anil Kumar Mitra
Retired Assistant Section Officer from KVS
r/o 3/151, Vastu Khand, Govindnagar,
Lucknow.
-Applicant
2025.05.28
RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30'
4
Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resources Development,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Kendariya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Through the
Commissioner, 18, Institutional Arca, Shahzed
Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi.
....Respondents
6.OA No.-1662 of 2019
Tarkeshwar Tiwari, Age-61 Years 'A'
S/o Sh.Debi Dayal Tiwari,
Retired as Vice Principal from KVS
R/o 6,MIG, Preetam Nagar (Dhoomanganj)
Allahabad (UP).
-Applicant
VERSUS
1. The Commissioner,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
18, Institutional Area, Saheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi.
2. The Assistant Commissioner (Fin.)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
18, Institutional Area, Saheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi.
3.The Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resources Development (HRD)
Govt. of India, New Delhi.
....Respondents
7.OA No.-2334 of 2022
Amrit Pal, Aged-63 Years
S/o Sh. Lal Chand,
Retired as Assistant Section Officer from KVS,
r/o Street No.1, Moti Nagar, Near Gori Shankar
Mandir Tapa Distt. Banda ( Punjab)
2025.05.28
RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30'
5
Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
-Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India through
The Secretary,
Ministry of Education, Govt. of India,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Through the Commissioner,
18, Institutional Area, Saheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi-110016.
3. The Assistant Comissioner (Fin.),
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
18, Institutional Area, Saheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi.-110016.
4. The Deputy Commissioner,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
SCO-72-73, Sector 31A,
Chandigarh.160030
5. The Joint Commissioner(Fin.)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
Delhi Region, JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110016.
....Respondents
8. OA No-2536 of 2021
Tasadduque Khan, Aged-60 Years, 'A'
S/o Late Sh. Mashooq Khan,
Retired Principal from KVS
R/o 118A, Khushboo Enclave,
Opp. Dr. Warsi's House, Pilibhit Bye Pass Road,
Bareilly (UP)
-Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India through
The Secretary,
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Through the Commissioner,
18, Institutional Area, Saheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi.
2025.05.28
RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30'
6
Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
3. The Deputy Commissioner
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Ahmedabad Region, Sector -30,
Gandhinagar, Gujarat.
....Respondents
9. OA No-4036 of 2018
Nirmala Chaudhary Group
Aged about 61 years
(Retired as Primary Teacher, KVS Narela)
W/o Sh. Dalel Singh
R/o H. No. 940, Sector -12,
Sonipat, Haryana. -Applicant
Versus
1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, through its
Commissioner, 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet
Singh Marg, New Delhi.
2. The Joint Commissioner (Trg/Finance)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional
Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi.
....Respondents
10. OA-4686/2018
1. Mrs. Archana Maheshwari,
Aged-68 Years,'A'
W/o Late Sh. P.K. Maheshwari, Retired as
Principal from KVS, R/o K-127, Shivalik
Nagar, BHEL, Ranipur-249403 Haridwar,
(Uttrakhand)
2. Mrs. Anju Dhanda, Aged-65 Years, 'B'
W/o Late A.K. Dhanda, Retired as TGT
(Hindi)from KVS, R/o 99, 1 Floor, Gate
No.6, AravaliAppartment,
Alaknanda, New Delhi-19
3. Smt. Sheela Rani Dua, Aged-67 Years, B
W/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Dua,
Retired as SVPW
Teacher from KVS, R/o J-146,
Shivalik Nagar,BHEL Ranipur, Haridwar
(Uttrakhand)
2025.05.28
RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30'
7
Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
4. Smt. Malvika Satya, Aged-68 Years, W/o
Late Subhash Chandra Chandava, Retired
as SVPW Teacher from KVS, R/o B-76,
Shivalik Nagar, BHEL Ranipur, Haridwar
(Uttrakhand)
5. Mrs. Anjala Jeth, Aged-68 Years, 'B'
W/o Mr. Ashvini Jethi, Retired as TGT
(S.St) from KVS, R/o H.No.326, Near Police
Chowki, Khanjarpur, Roorkee-247667
6. Mrs. Renu Goswami, Aged- 70 Years, 'C'
W/o Late Shiri Shankar Goswami, Retired
as H.M. from KVS, R/o C-17, Shivalik
Nagar, BHEL Ranipur, Haridwar
(Uttrakhand)
- Applicants
VERSUS
Kendariya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Through the
Commissioner, 18, Institutional Area, Shahzed
Jeet Singh Marg. New Delhi.
....Respondents
11. OA No.2413 of 2021
Ravinder Jit Kaur, Aged 72 years 'B'
W/o Sh. Ajai Vir Singh,
Retired TGT from KVS
r/o B-127, Fateh Nagar, Jai Road,
New Delhi-18
-Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Human Resource Development, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, through The
Commissioner, 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet
Singh Marg, New Delhi.
2025.05.28
RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30'
8
Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
3. The Joint Commissioner (Trg/Fin)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional
Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi.
110016.
....Respondents
12.OA No.3075 of 2021
Smt. Devinder Kapoor, Aged -61 Years, 'A'
W/o Sh. Rajesh Kapoor,
Retired Principal from KVS,
R/o B-702, EPIC Society,
Kesnand Road, Wagholi, Pune
Maharashtra-412207
- Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through
The Secretary,
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India,
Sastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Through the Commissioner,
18, Institutional Area, Saheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi-110016.
3. The Deputy Commissioner
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Gurgaon Region,
Gurugram (Haryana)
....Respondents
13.OA No.3687 of 2018
R.K. Kapoor, Aged 65 Years Group 'B'
S/o Late Sh. Roop Chand Kapoor
Retired as Yoga Teacher from KVS
R/o H. No. 17, Lance-2, Krishana Nagar,
Roorkee-247667.
- Applicant
Versus
1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, through The
Commissioner, 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet
Singh Marg, New Delhi.
2025.05.28
RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30'
9
Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
2. The Joint Commissioner (Admn.)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional
Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi.
110016.
....Respondents
14. OA No.1363 of 2020
Smt. Sudarshan Rana, aged 66 years
W/o Sh. Kewal Krishan Rana
Retired Principal from KVS
r/o B-36 Stadium Villa Bugalows
Stadium Road, Motera,
Ahmedabad (Guj)-380005
-Applicant
Versus
1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, through The
Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources
Development, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Through the
Commissioner 18, Institutional Area, Shahzed
Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi. 110016.
3. The Finance Officer,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional
Area, Shahzed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi. 110016.
....Respondents
15.OA No.-1434/2019
1. R.D. Rohilla, Aged-70 Years, Group-B S/o
Sh. Amir Singh, Retired as PGT (History)
from KVS, R/o B-6, Chander Vihar, Palam
Extension, New Delhi-110077.
2. Bishan Swaroop, Aged-73 Years, Group- 'B'
S/o Sh. Mangta Ram, Retired as PGT
(History) from KVS, R/o H.No.698, Mohalla
Kayasthwara, Rewari-123401
3. R.P. Bathla, Aged-67 Years, Group-'B' S/o
Late Sh. C.D. Bathla, Retired as TGT
(Science) from KVS, R/o C-101, Corona
Appartment, Sector-37C, Gurgaon.
2025.05.28
RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30'
10
Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
4. R.B. Singh, Aged-62 Years, Group- 'B' S/o
Late Sh. S.M. Singh, Retired as Principal
from KVS, R/o B-32, Subhash Park, Uttam
Nagar, New Delhi-110059
5. K.Sreemannarayana, aged 60 years s/o
Sh.K.Veerabhadrudu, Retired as PGT
(Maths) from KVS r/o 45-2-60/2/2,
Ramachandra Nagar, Beside K.V.Waltair,
Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam(Urban)
(AP).
6. Ms. Shashi Suri, aged 65 years D/O Sh.
B.B.Suri, Retired Vice-Principal from KVS
r/o 237, SFS Apartments, Hauz Khas, New
Delhi.
7. Sohan Lal Girdhar, aged 76 years, S/o Sh.
K.R.Girdhar, Retired SUPW Teacher from
KVS r/o C-133, East of Kailash, New Delhi.
8. Arjun Dev Ahuja, aged 65 years, s/o Sh.
Chander Bhan Ahuja, Retired PGT(English)
from KVS r/o K-50E, Sheikh Sarain Phase-
II New Delhi.
9. Ms. Manika Bhalla, aged 63 years, w/o
Dr.Sh. Kapil Bhalla, Retired TGT(English)
from KVS. r/o H.No.7421, B-10, Vasan
Kunj, New Delhi-70.
10. Ram Pal Singh, aged 67 years S/o Sh.
Bholer Singh, Retired PGT(Geography) r/o
H.No.276, Sector 14, Rohtak.
11. Narayana Singh Ranawat, aged 69 years,
s/o Sh. Thakur Kazore Singh Ranawat,
retired PGT(Eco.) from KVS r/o B-58,
Saraswati Kunj, 25 1.P.Extension,
Patparganj, Delhi-92
12. Mrs. Geeta Moharya, aged 64 years w/o
Sh. K.L.Bakshi, Retired Primary Teacher
from KVS. r/o 7, Karni Colony, Nandari
Phanta, Banar Road, Jodhpur(Raj).
2025.05.28
RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30'
11
Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
13. Sunder Pesswani, aged 72 years, s/o Late
Sh. Sobhraj Pesswani, Retired TGT(Sc.)
from KVS r/o Pkt-C, Flat NO.16-D,
Gangotri Enclave, Alaknanada, New Delhi-
19.
14. Mrs. Yogesh Sharma, aged 60 years, w/o
Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Retired as
TGT(PHE) from KVS r/o H.No.137, Suraj
Enclave, Street No.2, Ferozepur City,
Punjab.
15. Mrs. Savita Hajela, Aged-D/o Sh. Sukhbeer
Sahai, Retired Primary Teacher from KVS,
R/o H.No.801, Surya Vihar Colony. Pinto
Park, Gwalior.
......Applicants
Versus
1. Kendariya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Through the Commissioner,
18, Institutional Arca, Shahzed Jeet Singh
Marg, New Delhi.110016
2. The Assistant Commissioner (Admn.)
Kendariya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18,
Institutional Area, Shahzed Jeet Singh
Marg, New Delhi-110016
3.
The Secretary, Ministry of Human
Resources Development, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi. 110001.
....Respondents
16.OA No.-2050 of 2019
1. K.C. Jain
S/o Sh. Kesari Chand Jain
Retired as Principal from KVS
r/o 43, Nirman Bunglows, Sayona City
Ghatlodia, Ahemdabad-380061
2. Vinaya Jain through LRsK.C. Jain
S/o Sh. Kesari Chand Jain
Retired as TGT from KVS
r/o 43 Nirman Bunglows, Sayona City,
Ghatlodia, Ahemdabad -380061
-Applicants
2025.05.28
RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30'
12
Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
VERSUS
1. Union of India through
The Secretary,
Ministry of Education, Govt. of India,
New Delhi.
2. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Through the Commissioner,
18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi
3.
The Joint Commissioner (Trg./Fin),
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi.
....Respondents
17.OA No.-3630 of 2019
Mrs. Sunitra Devi, Aged- 70 Years, 'C'
W/o Mr. Ajai Vir Singh
Retired Primary Teacher from KVS
R/o 270, B-Block, Shyam Nagar,
Kanpur (U.P)
- Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Human Resource Development, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, through The
Commissioner, 18, Institutional Area, Shahzed Jeet
Singh Marg, New Delhi.
3. The Joint Commissioner (Trg/Fin)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional
Area, Shahzed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi.
110016.
....Respondents
18. OA No.2077 of 2020
1.Ms. Pritam Kaur Ghai, aged years D/o Sh.Chet
Singh, Retired TGT(SSt.) from KVS r/o 832, Urban
Estate Phase2, Near Mgn Public School,
Jalandhar.
2025.05.28
RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30'
13
Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
2. Ms. Anita Wahi, aged years D/o Sh.Manohar
Lal Puri, Retired TGT(Hindi) from KVS r/o
H.No.20-A, Street No.1, Friends Colony Wadala,
Jalandhar.
3. Ms. Prem Juneja, aged years D/o Sh.Rochi Ram,
Retired TGT(Hindi.) from KVS r/o 1674,
Sector 22B, Chandigarh.
4. Ms. Vimal Joshi, aged years D/o Sh.Bhim Sen
Sharma, Retired TGT(English) from KVS r/o House
No.20, The Mall Road, Jalandhar Cantt.
Punjab.
-Applicants
Versus
1. Kendariya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Through the
Commissioner, 18, Institutional Area, Shahzed
Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi.
2. The Assistant Commissioner (Finance) Kendariya
Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional Area,
Shahzed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi.
....Respondents
19.OA No. 45 of 2019
1. Ms. Veena Rani Jain, aged 60 years 'B'
D/o Late Sh.Suraj Bhan Jain, Retired
TGT(Eng.) from KVS r/o 206, Aksits
Appartment, Opp.Saint George School,
Bharuganj, Agra-28001
2. Smt. Meena Srivastava, aged 70 years B'
w/o Col. S.Kumar, Retired TGT (Hindi) from
KVS r/o Block C-1 Flat No.608, Mont Vert
Pristine, Behind Kirke Railway Station, Pune-
411020
3. Ms. Babita Sinha, aged 60 years, B'
w/o Sh. Rajvir Hajeka, Retired Primary Teacher
from KVS r/o Fali No.1 Block-A, Bibhab
Belleve, Mayur tourist Complex, Fatehabad
Road,
Agra(UP).
...Applicants
2025.05.28
RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30'
14
Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
Versus
1. Kendariya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Through the
Commissioner, 18, Institutional Area, Shahzed
Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi.
2. The Joint Commissioner (Trg./Fin.) Kendariya
Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional Area,
Shahzed Jeet singh Marg,
New Delhi-110016.
....Respondents
20. OA-2355 of 2019
1. Ashok Kumar, Aged-67 Years 'B'
S/o Late Sh. R.D. Singh,
Retired as PGT (Hindi) from KVS
R/o Flat No. 01, FF, 59 Balrampur House
Prayagraj ( UP-211002)
2. Rajendra Prasad Pandey, Aged-66 Years, 'B'
S/o Late Ramashankar Pandey, Retired as TGT
(Hindi) from KVS, R/o 35A/39B, Abubakarpur,
P.O.Dhuman Ganj, Allahabad (Prayagraj)-
211011 (UP)
3. Krishna Kant Misra, Aged-65 Years, 'B'
S/o Sh. Kamala Kant Misra Retired as TGT
(Sanskrit) from KVS, R/o 562, T.P. Nagar,
Mundera, Allahabad (U.P.)
4.Om Prakash, Aged- 64 Years, 'A'
S/o Late Sh. Ramdeo,
Retired as Principal from KVS,
R/o 75 MIG, Preetam Nagar, P.O. Dhooman
Ganj,Distt. Allahabad-211011
5.Dhan Raj Maurya, Aged-64 Years, 'B'
S/o Late Sri Ram Adhar Maurya,
Retired as TGT (Math) from KVS,
R/o L.I.G.-134, Kalindi Puram, A.D.A. colony,
Allahabad-211011
6. Mrs. Nighat Shahnaz, Aged-67 Years, 'C'
W/o Mr. Hadi Hasan,
Retired as Headmistress from KVS,
R/o C-305, GTB Nagar Kareli Scheme,
Allahabad (UP)-211016
2025.05.28
RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30'
15
Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
7. Ram Pher Prajapati, Aged-69 Years, 'C'
S/o Late Sh. Pabaroo Ram Prajapati,
Distt. Jaunpur,UP-223103
8. Shesh Narayan Upadhyay, Aged-70 Years, 'A'
S/o Late Sh. Basu Dev Upadhyay,
Retired as Vice-
Principal from KVS, R/o 139/1, Bhulai Kapura,
Post Teliargunj, Allahabad-211004.
9. Dr. Purnima Pandey, Aged-61 Years, 'C'
D/o Sh. Chandra Shankar Dunbey,
Retired as PRT from KVS,
R/o 19 B/12, Harwara, Preetam Nagar,
Allahabad-211011.
.....Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Human Resource Development, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, through The
Commissioner, 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet
Singh Marg, New Delhi.
3. The Joint Commissioner (Trg/Fin)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional
Area, Shahzed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi.
110016.
....Respondents
21. OA No.3319 of 2019
Smt. Reena Nandi, aged 59 Years 'B'
w/o Sh. P.K. Nandi,
working as TGT (Biology) in KVS
presently posted in KV, Lucknow
R/o Flat A-6/S, Parsbhnath City
Fatehabad Road, Lucknow (UP).
-Applicant
Versus
2025.05.28
RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30'
16
Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
HRD, Govt. of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Through the
Commissioner, 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet
Singh Marg, New Delhi.
3. The Assistant Commissioner (Finance)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional
Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi. 110016.
4. The Deputy Commissioner,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Sector J,
Aliganj, Lucknow.
....Respondents
22.OA No-3354 of 2019
Prakash Chandra Ratha, Age-58 Years 'A'
S/o Late Sh. Rama Chandra Ratha
Retired as Principal from KVS
R/o Sri Ram Nagar, 1st Lane,
Near Dena Bank & Saraswati Sishu Vidya
Mandir, Balighat, Puri (Odiassa)
-Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India through
The Secretary,
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India,
Sastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Through the Commissioner,
18, Institutional Area, Saheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi.
3. The Additional Commissioner (Admn.),
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
18, Institutional Area, Saheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi.-110016.
....Respondents
23.OA-434 of 2023
1. Mrs. Usha Rani Bajaj, Aged- 62 Years, W/o Mr.
K.L. Bajaj, Retired as PRT from KVS, Resident of
Flat No.C-3, Anamika Apartment, Sector-4, Plot
No.25-B, Dwarka, New Delhi-110078
2025.05.28
RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30'
17
Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
2. Mrs. Sheela Ahuja, Aged- 64 Years, W/o Mr. R.K.
Ahuja, Retired as PRT from KVS Resident of A-
304, Kalka Apartments, Plot No.31, Sector-6,
Dwarka, New Delhi-110075
3. Mrs. Sharda Grover, Aged-65 Years, W/o Shri
Pramod Grover, Retired as PRT from KVS
Resident of Flat No.36, Jupiter Apartments, D-
Block, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018
4. Mrs. Abha Trivedi, Aged- 63 Years, W/o Mr.
Rama Pati, Retired as Music Teacher from KVS,
Resident of B1/103, Sunny Valley, Plot No.27,
Sector-12, Dwarka, New Delhi-110078
5. Mrs. Shakti Rana, Aged-62 Years, W/o Mr.
Mahendra Kumar Rana, Retired as PRT from
KVS Resident of House No.C-72, Old DLF,
Sector-14, Gurgaon-122001
6. Mrs. Vandana Gulati, Aged-63 Years, W/o Mr.
Praveen Kumar Gulati, Retired as PRT from KVS
Resident of D-15/4, G.F. ARDEE City, Sector-52,
Gurugram-122011
7. Mrs. Renuka Khanna, Aged-66 Years,
W/o Mr. Arun Khanna, Retired as TGT (Bio) from
KVS Resident of E-603, Satisar Apartments,
Sector-7, Plot No.6, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075
8. Mrs. Shashi Nanda, Aged-66 Years, W/o Mr.
Sudhir Kumar, Retired as PRT from KVS
Resident of E-4 (WZ-55), Rattan Park, Opp. Kirti
Nagar, New Delhi-110015
9. Mrs. Reena Bhagat, Aged-71 Years, W/o Mr.
Suresh Kumar Bhagat, Retired as Head Mistress
from KVS Resident of F-50, 1ª Floor, Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110019
10. Mrs. Madhu Upadhyay, Aged-63 Years, W/o Mr.
B.M. Upadhyay, Retired as TGT (Skt.) from KVS
Resident of Jaypee Greens, Jaypee Kosmos,
Tower KM 36/207, Sector-134, Noida (U.P.)
110025
11. Mrs. Indu Dobriyal, Aged-63 Years, W/o Mr.
Satya Vardhan Dobriyal, Retired as TGT
(Sanskrit) from KVS Resident of 137/1,
Meghdoot Enclave, Kalidas Road, Dehradun,
Uttrakhand. 248001
2025.05.28
RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30'
18
Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
12. Mrs. Amita Sharma, Aged- 61 Years, W/o Mr.
Kuldeep Sharma, Retired as TGT (Sanskrit) from
KVS Resident of A-101, BCM Paradise, Nipaniya,
Indore (M.P.) 176402
13. Jairaj Dayaram Surayawanshi, Aged- 64 Years,
S/o Sh. Dayaram K. Surayawanshi Retired as
Lab. Attendant from KVS Resident of Karmayogi
Apartment, B/H Nirman Nakshtra Panchvati,
Aurangabad Road, Nasik-422003
14. Mrs. Sugandhi Peter B., Aged-61 Years, W/o Mr.
J.S. Peter Boomibalan, Retired as TGT (Bio) from
KVS Resident of L-2/102, Lok Kedar CHS, J.S.D.
Road,Mulund-W, Mumbai-400080
15. P.N. Suryawanshi, Aged-85 Years, S/o Sh. Brijlal
Suryawanshi, Retired as WET (SUPW Teacher)
from KVS Resident of MQ 1582, Hospital Colony,
P.O. Pathakheda, M.P.-460449
16. Mrs. Sunita Verma, Aged-70 Years, W/o Mr.
Ashok Chandra Verma, Retired as TGT (Hindi)
from KVS Resident of H.No.224 (4A) South Birsa
Nagar, Hatia Station Road, P.O. Hatia, Ranchi-3
17. Ram Chandar Maurya, Aged-66 Years, S/o Late
Ram Nihor Maurya, Retired as TGT (Maths) from
KVS Resident of B-404, Divya Jyot Complex,
Near Deepali Park, Opp. Dharti Tower, Badlapur
(W) Thane-421503
18. Jaydev Dey, Aged-71 Years, S/o Late Sukumar
Dey, Retired as Assistant (ASO) from KVS
Resident of C/o Vinay Taru Bhavan, 4E, 4th
Floor, 18A/19A, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, PO
Motijhil, PS Dumdum, Kolkata-700074 (WB)
19. Sati Ram, Aged-62 Years, S/o Late Sh. Ram
Chander, Retired as TGT (English) from KVS
Resident of Vill& P.O. Surisa, Shahganj, Distt.
Jaunpur (U.P.)
20. Uday Chand Banerjee, Aged-74 Years, S/o Sh.
Panch Kari Banerjee, Retired as PRT from KVS
Resident of Vill& P.O. Patrasayer, Distt. Bankura
West Bengal-722206
2025.05.28
RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30'
19
Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
21. Vinoy Kumar, Aged- 62 Years, S/o Late
Sidheswar Singh, Retired as PRT from KVS
Resident of Flat NO.B2/F2, N.G. Garden, Road
No.5,Dipatoli, New Nagar, Bandh Gari, P.O.
Buty, Ranchi, Pin-835217, Jharkhand
22. Mohammad Ejazuddin Mallick, Aged-63 Years,
S/o Sh. Md. Salahuddin, Retired as TGT (Maths)
from KVS Resident of Alfatma Complex, Flat
No.F-2, Ghaus Nagar Chas, Bokaro-827013
(Jharkhand)
23. Mata Sewak Mishra, Aged-68 Years, S/o Sh.
Ram Pratap Mishra, Retired as PRT (Music) from
KVS, Resident of Flat No.H2/408, Ganga
Yamuna Hindan Enclave, Sector-07, Siddharth
Vihar, Ghaziabad-201009
.....Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Human Resource Development, (Department of
School Education & Literacy), Govt. of India,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 110001
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of
Expenditure, Govt. of India, North Block,
New Delhi. 110001
3. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, through The
Commissioner, 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet
Singh Marg, New Delhi. 110016.
....Respondents
(Advocate for the applicant: Shri Yogesh Sharma in all
OAs)
(Advocate for the respondents: Mr U N Singh in OAs
Nos. 2108/2022, 985/2020, 1903/2019, 2792/2019,
1434/2019, 3630/2019, 2077/2020, 45/2019,
2355/2019, 3319/2019, 3354/2019, 2536/2021,
4036/2018, 4686/2018, 2413/2021, 3075/2021,
3687/2018 and 1363/2020, Mr Sanjeev Yadav in OA
No 2108/2022, Ms Kiran Ahlawat in OA No.
1477/2022, Mr N K Bhatnagar in OA No. 2050/2019
and Mr Vivek Gupta in OA No. 2334/2022, Mr. Anil
Kumar Mishra in OA No. 434/2023, Mr. Ashish Yadav
for Mr. Shubhranshuy Padhi in OA No. 1662/2019)
2025.05.28
RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30'
20
Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A): -
As the issue involved in the present OA No. 2108 of 2022 and other connected twenty two OAs is same but the facts and circumstances are slightly different, like dates of appointment of applicants and impugned orders,which the applicants are challenging, for adjudication ofthe issue involvedin the matter based on the same grounds and reliefs are also identical and therefore, with the consent of learned counsels of both the parties on all the OAs, we proceed to dispose of all these cases by this common Order. For the sake of convenience in writing of this common Order, OA No. 2108/2022 is taken as a lead case.
2. The applicant in OA-2108/2022 filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has sought the following relief: -
―(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order date 30.7.2021/4.8.2021(Annex.A/1), declaring to the effect that the same is totally illegal, arbitrary and against the rules and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to place the applicant in GPF-cum-Pension scheme on the basis of his direct recruitment after 1.1.1986 to the post of LDC with all consequential benefits including granting service pension from the date of his retirement with interest.
(ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to pass an order, declaring to the effect that the whole action of the respondents applying the CPF Scheme on the applicant on his fresh appointment as LDC on 15.4.1990 is void-ab-initio as in the year 1990, CPF Scheme was not in operation for fresh appointment and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to treat the applicant as governed by GPF cum pension scheme with all consequential benefits including the arrears of pension from the date of retirement with interest.
2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 21 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
(iii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant with the cost of litigation.‖ BRIEF FACTS AND APPLICANT'S CONTENTIONS:
3. The applicant, who is orthopedically handicapped, was initially appointed in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (in short 'KVS') as Group 'D' employee on 06.12.1985 on direct recruitment basis. The K.V.Hazaribagah, Bihar, vide letter dated 15.12.1988 invited applications through employment exchange for the posts of LDC on direct recruitment basis for which the applicant applied and after qualifying the selection, he was appointed to the said post vide order dated 09.02.1989 on adhoc basis and was subsequently, regularized w.e.f. 15.04.1990 vide order dated 17.4.1990. He was also confirmed w.e.f. 13.02.1991 vide order dated 17.02.1994 (Annexures A-2 & A-3). During service, the applicant was promoted to the post of UDC and retired from the same post w.e.f. 31.07.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation while working in K.V.Andrews Ganj, New Delhi.
4. It is the contention of the applicant that the Government of India decided to close the CPF Scheme for fresh appointment and all the Government servants appointed after01.01.1986 would be governed by the GPF cum pension scheme. The decision of the Government of India was also accepted by the KVS as defined by Article 51 of the KVS code. (Annexure A-5).Government servants appointed after 01.01.1986 were deemed to be in GPF cum pension scheme as there was no CPF Scheme for them. The applicant was appointed as LDC on direct recruitment basis w.e.f. 13.02.1989 (regularized on 15.04.1990) from open market and therefore, heis 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 22 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs deemed to be governed by GPF scheme as similarly situated persons, who were appointed along with him have also been placed under GPF cum pension scheme.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant further contends that on fresh appointment as LDC, as per the Government of India decisions, the applicant was deemed to be governed by the GPF cum pension scheme as after 01.01.1986, no CPF scheme was in existence. But the respondents in an arbitrary manner and by violating the Government of India statutory provisions and Article 51 of the KVS Education code, treated the applicant under CPF Scheme.When the case of the applicant was not finalized, hepreferred his representation to the KVS authorities, vide representations dated 17.03.2021, 07.06.2021 etc., however, the respondents vide impugned order dated 30.07.2021/04.08.2021(Annexure A-1) rejected the case of the applicant by relying upon the letter of Ministry of HRD dated 07.04.2015, which the applicant claims, is not applicable in his case.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant further claims that this is not the case of changing from CPF to GPF and no option involved, but this is a case in which the respondents themselves wrongly applied CPF inspite of the fact that the applicant was directly appointed as LDC after 01.01.1986 and at that time, there was no CPF scheme available and therefore, neither the applicant submitted any option nor was there any provision for submitting the same.Therefore, the action of the respondents is totally illegal in the eyes of law.
7. In support of claim of the applicant, the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 23 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs following orders/ judgments of various Benches of the Tribunal/ Hon'ble High Courts: -(i) judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Namrata Semwal decided on 10.04.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 5238/2024, (ii) judgment of this Tribunal dated 26.04.2022 passed in OA No. 153/2019 with other connected OAs (Mrs. Gurmail Kaur vs. Commissioner, KVS) by the Jaipur Bench; (iii) order dated 22.04.24 in OA No.1760/2019 (Mrs. Chandra Prabha Chaudhri vs. KVS & Ors), (iv) judgment dated 22.04.2024 in OA No. 3093/19 (Mohd. Nayeen Uddin vs. KVS) passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, (v) the order dated 27.09.2022 in OA Nos. 611/2019, 402/2019 &541/2019 (Ashwani Trikha vs. KVS) passed by the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal,(vi) the judgment dated 27.07.2023 in D.B. Civil Petition No. 16677/2022 (The Joint Commissioner, KVS vs. Miss Vijay Laxmi Sharma) passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur, (vii) the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 22.01.2021 in W.P.(C). No. 6193/2020 (KVS vs. Dr. V.D. Arya).
REPLY BY THE RESPONDENTS:
8. The respondents in their reply rebutted that the applicant has on his own volition opted CPF scheme and, thereafter, he submitted revised optionform dated 30.12.1989 with respect to KVS O.M. dated 01.09.1988 to continue his CPF scheme and was allotted revised CPF A/C No. 1811 in place of old CPF A/C No. CEC-4391.He also contributed CPF subscription to continue his CPF scheme till his retirement i.e. 31.07.2015. Therefore, the rejection of representations of applicant was in order.
Hence, the applicant is not entitled for any relief.
2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 24 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
9. The respondents further state that the matter regarding the grant of one time permission for change over from CPF to GPF cum pension scheme was considered by Ministry of HRD in consultation with department of expenditure. Ministry of HRD, vide letter no.F.4-14/2012-UT-2 dated 7thApril 2015,informed that the department of expenditure after examining the proposal has inter-alia observed as under: -
"The employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan who were in service as on 01.01.1986 and decided to opt for CPF made a conscious decision knowing well the option exercised is final. Grant of one more option to such CPF subscribers in KVS could have repercussion elsewhere with such an option having to be extended to all other CPF beneficiaries as well whose number is quite substantial.
In view of the above position, the proposal of grant of one time permission for changing from CPF to GPF cum Pension Scheme for teaching and non-teaching staff of KVS is not agreed.‖
10. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the following OMs, orders and judgments passed by the Apex Court: -
(i) OM No. F.No. 152-1/79-80/KVS/Budget/Part.II dated 01.09.1988 issued by the KVS . (ii) The judgment dated 06.06.2009 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2876 of 2007 titled KVS & Ors. vs. Jaspal Kaur & Ors. (ii) the judgment dated 08.12.2009 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8151 of 2009 titled Union of India & Ors vs. M.K. Sarkar(iii) the judgment dated 31.10.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No. 25590 of 2014 titled National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi. (v)the judgment dated 06.09.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 25 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs India in SLP (C) No. 18727 of 2023 titled Union Territory of Ladakh& Ors. vs. Jammu & Kashmir National Conference & Anr. (vi) The judgment dated 31.10.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Review Petition (C) No. 1620 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020 titled Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr. (vii) the judgment dated 10.08.2010 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 14027 of 2009 titled Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Madhu Bhushan Anand; (viii) the judgment dated 20.09.2011 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LPA No. 708 of 2002 titled R.D. Gupta & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.(ix) the judgment dated 12.03.2021 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 7712/2020 titled Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Manju Sehgal and W.P. (C) No.9851/2020 titled Kendriya Vidyalya Sangthan vs. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal; (x) the judgment dated 31.10.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulum in OP (Central Administrative Tribunal) No. 124 of 2019 titled M.R. Indira vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors.
REJOINDER:
11. In rejoinder, the applicant reiterates that this is not the case of changing from CPF to GPF and no option involved, but this is a case in which the respondents themselves wrongly applied CPF inspite of the fact that the applicant was directly appointed as LDC after 01.01.1986 and at the time there was no CPF scheme available and therefore, neither the applicant submitted any option nor was there any provision for submitting 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 26 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs the same and, therefore, the action of the respondents is totally illegal in the eyes of law. The applicant states that similarly situated persons who were appointed on direct recruitment basis like the applicant, and more than 30 such cases were decided by the Tribunal; particulars of some of the applicants read as under:
S.No. Name of applicant O.A. No. Date of
decision
1. Hoshiar Singh 2112/2013 19.09.2016
2. B.C. Tyagi 2073/2014 08.11.2016
3. Vijay Kumar Malik 4592/2015 15.05.2017
4. D.K. Gupta 4579/2015 06.12.2017
5. R.P. Sharma 2544/2018 11.07.2018
6. A.K. Shukla 4300/2017 06.12.2017
7. G.S. Verma 4593/2015 15.05.2017
8. Kusum Lata 4675/2015 03.07.2017
9. S.K. Verma 3951/2015 15.05.2017
10. P.R.L. Gupta 2318/2015 18.05.2017
11. Ranjan Kishore 3100.2015 15.05.2017
12. G.L. Bunkar 1077/2018 19.03.2018
13. Kamlesh Mishra 1155/2018 20.03.2018
14. Kamla Urpati 1717/2018 02.05.2018
12. We have carefully perused the pleadings as also heard the learned counsels for the parties in all the cases.
ANALYSIS:
13. Having regard to the facts and submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, we observe that the issue involved in this case is no more res integra in view of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union of India and others vs. Namrata Semwal (supra), on which reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the applicant, in which the Hon'ble High Court observed as under:-
―6. In order to appreciate the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, we may begin by noting the relevant extracts of 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 27 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs the impugned order which read as under:
―1.3 The applicant was posted to KV Bulandshahar on promotion as Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) on 05.10.1993. The applicant, who never gave any option to continue under CPF Scheme, understood that she was deemed to have been covered under the Pension Scheme, but when the applicant realized that her provident fund was still being shown as CPF, she made a representation in the year 1993 to the KVS through the Principal to convert her CPF to GPF (Pension). In the year 1994, she made yet another representation in this regard, but the Principal concerned refused to accept the same.
1.4 The applicant came to know that KVS had permitted conversion from CPF to GPF (Pension) in the case of Mr. Johnson P. John in compliance of directions of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court. Hence, she preferred a representation dated 16.06.2015 through Principal requesting KVS to consider her case as well for conversion to GPF (Pension) followed by reminders dated 23.08.2016, 05.09.2017 and 10.05.2018 but none of her representations received any response from KVS.
1.5 The act of the respondents in not converting the CPF of the applicant to GPF (Pension) is violative of para 3 of OM dated 01.09.1988 whereby it has been clearly provided (that all those who did not opt for continuation under CPF would be deemed to have been transferred to GPF (Pension) Scheme.
3.2 In the case of KVS & Ors. v Jaspal Kaur A Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 2876 of 2007], it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that merely because the original documents relating to exercise of the option were not produced that should not be a ground to ignore the other ample materials which signify the exercise of option by the applicant.
Further, as per the order of the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Smt. Shashi Gupta, PRT KVS (O.A. 924/2016 decided on dated 16.10.2018), the case of the applicant therein that she be deemed to be covered under GPF cum-Pension Scheme has already been dismissed in view of the other corroborating evidence in form of monthly deductions for CPF. The applicant was given certain documents evidencing regular deduction towards contribution to CPF; Management Contribution made through Pay bills and Annual Statements issued to the applicant each year; Form 16 issued to applicant to file Income Tax Return from time to time duly mentioning the CPF deduction made, based on which the applicant had filed the Income Tax Return from time to time.
6.1 Having gone through the decision of the Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal in Mrs. Gurmail Kaur & Ors. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is noticed that on identical issue as involved in the present case and all the citations relied upon by the respective parties 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 28 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs including various other decisions on the subject, have elaborately been considered and dealt with therein. The aforesaid OAs had been decided by a common order dated 26.04.2022 with the following observations: -
"31. I am of the considered view that once issue has been considered and the same has been allowed by the Hon'ble High Courts after considering the various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, including in the case of Jaspal Kaur (supra) and objection of limitation and law thereon, the judgments of the Hon'ble High Courts would be binding and not the judgment(s) of the Single Bench and/or the Division Bench of this Tribunal on the same issue. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the applicants are entitled for conversion from C.P.F. to G.P.F and the applicants' claim is not barred by limitation, delay and laches."
6.2 During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the aforesaid order has since been challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur by filing a writ petition and the same pending adjudication. However, he has neither been able to provide the number of the said writ petition nor the date of listing of the said Writ Petition nor has he been able to apprise this Tribunal whether the Hon'ble High Court stayed the aforesaid order.
6.3 In the conspectus of the facts and circumstances brought out above, I am of the considered opinion that the present OA is squarely covered by the directions of this Tribunal contained in case of Mrs. Gurmail Kaur & Ors.(supra). Accordingly, the present OA is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant keeping in view the observations, as noted above, for conversion from CPF to GPF (Pension) Scheme as per rules and extend the same benefit to her as has been extended to the applicants in the case of Mrs. Gurmail Kaur & Ors.(supra). It is further directed that claim of the applicant shall not be rejected on the ground of limitation, delay and latches.‖
7. From the aforesaid extracts of the impugned order, it clearly emerges that on the one hand, there is no option of the respondent for being covered under the CPF Scheme after 01.09.1988 available and on the other hand, there are representations made by her right from 1993 requesting the petitioners to include her name under the GPF (Pension) Scheme. Even though, learned counsel for the petitioners is correct in urging that as held in Jaspal Kaur (supra), the mere absence of the option form on the record may not always be fatal, as an inference can also be drawn from the contemporary documents including pay slips, the fact remains that the respondent had all along been representing for including her name under the GPF (Pension) Scheme as per OM 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 29 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs dated 01.09.1988.In the light of this distinguishing factors, where representations were being all along made by the respondent for being included under the GPF (Pension) Scheme, the ratio of the decision in Jaspal Kaur (supra) would not be applicable to the present case. There is absolutely no explanation by the petitioners as to why those representations submitted in 1993 and 1994 were not rejected if any such option to be governed by the CPF Scheme was available in the records of the petitioners.
8. Furthermore, as was the position before the learned Tribunal, the petitioners have not been able to inform us as to whether the decision of the Jaipur Bench in Mrs. Gurmail Kaur (supra) which has been relied upon by the learned Tribunal was ever assailed. We may also note that the petitioners have not seriously disputed that the case of the respondent is not covered by the decision in Mrs. Gurmail Kaur (supra). In these circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order whereunder, the petitioners have been directed to extend the benefits of the decision in Mrs. Gurmail Kaur (supra) to the respondent.‖
14. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was challenged by the KVS before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) Diary No.48443/2024, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 14.11.2024, the same reads as under: -
―1. Delay condoned.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners' states that the judgment of the High Court in the case of Gurmail Kaur was challenged before this Court in SLP (C) Diary No.10468 of 2024, however, the same was dismissed, keeping the question of law open.
3. Having regard to the same, the SLP is dismissed.
However, the question of law is kept open.
4. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.‖
15. From the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra), it is apparently clear that the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Gurmail Kaur (supra) still holds the field. The said decision was rendered by Hon'ble Shri R.N. Singh, Member (J) while deciding the said matter as a Third Member to resolve the issue of disagreement between the Hon'ble Members who had passed the common order dated 17.1.2022 and by upholding the view of the Hon'ble Member 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 30 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs (J), this Tribunal vide common order dated 26.4.2022 observed as under: -
―17. Though the facts have not been in dispute in the aforesaid dissenting common Order/Judgment, however, the Hon'ble Member (A), disagreed with the Order/Judgment of the Hon'ble Member (J) on the ground that in a case with almost similar facts, recently, a Single Bench of this Tribunal vide Order/Judgment dated 21.12.2021 in Bela Agarwal (supra) has come to the opposite conclusion. In para 20 of the aforesaid dissenting common Order/Judgment dated 17.1.2022, the Hon'ble Member (A) has given a finding that in the case of Bela Agarwal (supra), the Tribunal did not follow the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Gajendra Singh Rathore (supra), not only because it considered to be the judgment per incuriam (since there is no mention of earlier Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in Jaspal Kaur (supra) but also because in the case of Gajendra Singh Rathore (supra), not filing of option was mentioned as an admitted fact. With further finding that in Bela Agarwal case (supra), the Single Bench after discussing all the decisions produced before it (for and against allowing such requests) decided against allowing such conversion at a late stage and dismissed the applicants' claim on ground of it being barred by limitation and also on account of lack of merit.
18. There is no dispute about the fact that it was not necessary to opt for GPF-cum-Pension Scheme, if an employee did not opt for continuing in CPF Scheme, he/she got automatically transferred to GPF Scheme.
19. In Bela Agarwal (supra) the Hon'ble Single Member decided against allowing conversion from CPF Scheme to GPF Scheme on the ground of being barred by limitation and also on account of lack of merit. In Bela Agarwal (supra) is based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaspal Kaur (supra). In para 20 of the common Order/Judgment dated 17.1.2022, a few judgments of Ernakulam Bench and Principal Bench of this Tribunal, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal have also been referred to, wherein requests for such conversion from CPF to GPF has been disallowed.
20. From the aforesaid, the issue arises: -
(i) as to whether the judgment of this Tribunal in Bela Agarwal's case (supra) is required to be followed or the judgments passed by various Hon'ble High Courts wherein besides other judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court besides in Jaspal Kaur (supra) has been considered and required to be followed;
(ii) as to whether the applicants are entitled for conversion from CPF to GPF; and/or 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 31 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
(iii) as to whether such claim of the applicants deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the same being barred by limitation, delay and laches.
21. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in LPA No.410/2014 and in a batch of cases, titled Smt. Shashi Kiran and others vs. Union of India and others, considered an identical issue and allowed the claim of the employees vide common Order/Judgment dated 24.8.2016. In paras 17, 19 and 20 of the said Order/Judgment, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has ruled as under: -
―17. This court is of opinion that the submissions of the University, the appellant, in regard to the Virmani's order, have no force. There is no denial and there can be none- that the nature of the scheme contemplated by the 01.05.1987 notification was to ensure that only those wishing to continue in the CPF scheme had to opt to do so. A default in that regard, meant that the employee not filling his option (to continue in CPF) was deemed to have ―come over‖ or migrated to the Pension Scheme. The University and the official respondents (UGC, Central Government etc) had urged that the petitioners in the Virmani group are deemed to have accepted the CPF benefits, because they allowed deductions from their monthly salaries during the interregnum and permitting Pension Scheme benefits would not be fair; in the same breath it was urged that there was delay. This court is of opinion that the University - and the respondents are relying on contradictory pleas. If they urge that the true interpretation of the 1987 circular meant that anyone not furnishing an option to continue in the CPF scheme is deemed to have opted for the Pension Scheme (as the Virmani group undoubtedly did) there is no way they can succeed on the ground of laches or estoppel. If plain grammatical meaning of the language of the May 1987 OM were to be given, all those who do not opt would automatically be borne in the Pension Scheme. Such being the position, the argument that the petitioners in Virmani allowed deduction of CPF amounts from their salary, cannot be argued against them. CPF schemes typically require employees to commit greater amounts than in GPF scheme, on a monthly basis. That these staff members allowed higher amounts, which were held under a scheme (and which earned interest), the benefit of which had not accrued and was not available to them till the date of superannuation, cannot be urged against them. Likewise, the question of laches would not arise, because at the most, pension would not be allowed for the entire period, given that in matters of pension (see Union of India & Ors. V. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648) there is a continuing cause of action.
Therefore, we find no infirmity with the learned Single Judge's order, in Virmani's case.‖ 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 32 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs ―19. It is argued by the learned counsel for the University that once the learned Single Judge held that extension of the option was not authorized, there was no question of granting relief. Furthermore, in respect of those who had not opted for CPF, but whose contributions continued in the scheme, the court should not have granted relief, given the passage of time and the voluntary conduct of the teaching staff and officials. It was urged that the learned Single Judge erred in relying on Union of India v. S.L. Verma (2006) 12 SCC 53; in any case, the observations relied on were mere passing remarks, in the nature of obiter and clearly had no binding effect. On the other hand, the learned Single Judge, urged the Appellants' counsel, fell into error in not relying on Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors v Jaspal Kaur & Anr (2007) 6 SCC 13 and Union of India and Ors v M.K. Sarkar (2010) 2 SCC 59.
20. This court is of the opinion that no infirmity can be found with the approach or reasoning of the learned Single Judge, in allowing the respondents' petitions. The learned Single Judge made a factual analysis, in this category of teaching staff. The chart, prepared for the purpose, and extracted at Para 3.1 of the judgment in this batch (N.C. Bakshi v Union of India WP 5310/2010) shows that all the employees opted for the CPF benefits, after the cut-off date. It was because of this and the expressed stand of the UGC- and the University that the learned Single Judge concluded that notwithstanding the so called option, exercised in terms of the extensions given, the writ petitioners could not be denied the benefit of the Pension Scheme because they were deemed, by the OM of 01.05.1987 to have opted for it, by default. Having regard to these facts, the appellants could not have urged that the benefit of the Pension Scheme should have been denied to these class of petitioners/teaching staff. Therefore, we are of opinion that there is no infirmity with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. The University's appeals, therefore, deserve to fail.‖
22. An identical issue came before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in R. Renukadevi vs. The Commissioner, KVS and others (supra). In the said case, at the time of joining the services in the KVS, there was no pension scheme for KVS employees, however, after 4th Pay Commission, the Pension Scheme was introduced vide Office Memorandum dated 1.9.1988. As per which employees joining service in the Sangathan on or after 01.01.1986 shall be governed only by the G.P.F Scheme and will have no option for the C.P.F. Scheme. However, for all C.P.F. beneficiaries, who were in service on 01.01.1986 and who are still in service on the date of issue of these orders will be deemed to have come over to the pension scheme. By virtue of the deeming clause, the petitioner therein was under the impression that she had been brought into the Pension 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 33 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs Scheme. When the same was denied to her, the petitioner therein approached the Madras Bench of this Tribunal by filing Original Application No.1166/2013. On behalf of the KVS, it was contended that an option was given to the KVS employees to switch over from C.P.F. Scheme to Pension Scheme in 1988 but the petitioner therein continued to be in the C.P.F. Scheme without demur and she cannot seek for pension under the Pension Scheme as she had not expressed any option after introduction of Pension Scheme in the year 1988. The Tribunal dismissed the said Original Application on the ground that petitioner continued till the date of retirement with the CPF Scheme and her case was distinguishable from the case covered by the judgment relied upon by her. The Hon'ble Madras High Court set aside the aforesaid Order of the Madras Bench of this Tribunal and directed the respondents to convert the pensioner under GPF Scheme forthwith, calculate and pay the revised pension including the arrears for which, he became eligible by such conversion and the petitioner therein was also directed to refund the amount received by him towards CPF Scheme with 9% p.a. interest from the date when he received till the date of payment and making it clear that arrears of pension payable to the petitioner therein under GPF Scheme may be adjusted towards refund of the P.F. amounts received by the petitioner with interest and also that in the event of not realizing the entire amount, the remaining portion amount may be refunded by the petitioner. Paras 9 to 11 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court read as under:-
9. Further, the Delhi High Court in "Smt.Shashi Kiran and others versus Union of India and others" etc., reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Del4819" has dealt with the issue in extenso and finally held that even if an option exercised by the employees, they would still be entitled to request for change of option to pension scheme in view of subsequent developments and change in socio and economic scenario.
10. Even going to the extent of holding that she had exercised her option in favour of Central Provident Fund Scheme, such exercise of option was not valid and subsisting in view of subsequent social and economic development. It is also to be seen from the decision of the Delhi High Court that several employees have been allowed to switch over from CPF to pension scheme even after the exercise of option originally in favour of the CPF scheme. Such being the case, singling out a few employees in some departments on an erroneous understanding of the office memorandum dated 01.09.1988, would be per se discriminatory and hence consequentially impermissible.
11. In the above circumstances, the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the claim of the petitioner in proper perspective with reference to the above said office memorandum and decisions cited on behalf of the petitioner. The learned Tribunal was misguided by the 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 34 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs fact that the petitioner continued to remain under CPF scheme without due appreciation of the fact that all employees, on introduction of the pension scheme in 1988, deemed to have come under pension scheme.
Merely because the petitioner continued to contribute to the CPF scheme, her right to get pensionary benefits under the pension scheme cannot stand negatived, as the right which falls for consideration before us is the constitutional right to equal treatment, as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.‖
23. An identical issue again came before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of S. Subbiah (supra). In the said case, the employees exercised their option to remain with C.P.F. Scheme, however, subsequently, they submitted representations that they should be brought under the Pension Scheme as they did not exercise their option before the cut of date, i.e., 30.9.1997, petitioners (original respondents) before the Tribunal resisted the claim of the employees on the ground that once the employees have chosen their exercise consciously, they cannot re-assail their position subsequently and claim pension under the Pension Scheme. The Madras Bench of this Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L. Verma (supra) as extracted in para 9 of its order as well as the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Dr. R.N. Virmani and others vs. University of Delhi and another (supra) and allowed the Applications filed by the employees and the Hon'ble Madras High Court dismissed the said Writ Petitions vide common Order/Judgment dated 5.1.2017, paras 14 thereof reads as under:-
―14. This Court, after hearing the arguments on either side, gave its anxious consideration with reference to the pleadings and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision of the Delhi High Court. The natural conclusion emanated from our anxious consideration will only lead to hold that the respondent employees despite their option to remain in CPF Scheme which was given during the extended period of time, are entitled to seek pension under the Pension Scheme. Firstly, the said option given during the time of extended period has no sanctity in law. Secondly, such option given by the employees cannot be held against them in view of the fact that several similarly placed employees of the Central Government were allowed to switch over to the CPF Scheme, meaning that no seriousness attached to the cut of date prescribed originally by the Official Memorandum dated 1.5.1987. If these employees were denied pension in the facts and circumstances, it would certainly amount to discrimination, which per se constitutionally impermissible. Moreover, the decision of the Delhi High Court cited supra and the contentions which were extracted above, would unequivocally supported the 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 35 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs claim of the respondent employees notwithstanding the fact that whether they exercised their option or not.‖
24. Again an identical issue came before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of N. Subramanian (supra), and the Hon'ble High Court considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaspal Kaur (supra) and set aside the Order of Madras Bench of this Tribunal dated 2.6.2015 in OA 736/2013, vide Order/Judgment dated 24.2.2017, and granted the prayer of the petitioner for conversion from CPF Scheme to GPF Scheme, para 11 thereof reads as under:-
―11. As regards the legal position, the issue has been covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court of Delhi. In fact, the same Tribunal in similar applications, had allowed the claims of the employees therein, declaring that they were deemed to be pensioners under pension scheme. In fact, this Court has dismissed the batch of writ petitions in WP 28092 to 28094 of 2015 etc., filed by the Union of India, wherein, the Tribunal allowed the similar claims. In fact, in those cases, option had been exercised by the employees in favour of CPF scheme, but in spite of the same, applications were filed and allowed by the Tribunal and the writ petitions filed against those orders by the Union of India, came to be dismissed this Court vide order dated 05.01.2007, with the following observation in para 13 and 14:
"13. From the above, it could be seen that even the employees who have originally opted to remain in CPF Scheme and switched over to Pension Scheme because the same was being more beneficial to them, the Court has held that non-grant of better benefits by way of pension and denying the same to one set of employees per se discriminatory notwithstanding the option exercised by the employees to remain in CPF scheme which was given during the extended period of time, are entitled to seek pension under the Pension Scheme. The Delhi High Court has adverted to several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts and passed a detailed judgment in a batch of appeals. The issues raised before the Delhi High Court were identical and the Court has answered the issues in favour of the employees.
14. This Court, after hearing the arguments on either side, gave its anxious consideration with reference to the pleadings and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision of the Delhi High Court. The natural conclusion emanated from our anxious consideration will only lead to hold that the respondent employees despite their option to 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 36 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs remain in CPF Scheme which was given during the extended period of time, are entitled to seek pension under the Pension Scheme. Firstly, the said option given during the time of extended period has no sanctity in law. Secondly, such option given by the employees cannot be held against them in view of the fact that several similarly placed employees of the Central Government were allowed to switch over to the CPF Scheme, meaning that no seriousness attached to the cut of date prescribed originally by the Official Memorandum dated 1.5.1987. If these employees were denied pension in the facts and circumstances, it would certainly amount to discrimination, which per se constitutionally impermissible. Moreover, the decision of the Delhi High Court cited supra and the contentions which were extracted above, would unequivocally supported the claim of the respondent employees notwithstanding the fact that whether they exercised their option or not.‖
25. The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur had also considered an identical issue in M.S. Panwar (supra). In the said cases, though before the Hon'ble High Court judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaspal Kaur (supra) was not brought to the notice, however, the identical facts were there and after considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Dwakar Prasad Koolwal and others, reported in AIR 2014 SC 365, and S.L. Verms (supra), the Hon'ble High Court allowed the prayer of the petitioners for conversion from CPF Scheme to GPF Scheme vide Order/Judgment dated 4.1.2018 and the said judgment has attained finality after dismissal of the SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 26.7.2019.
26. Similar has been the position before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in the case of Gajendra Singh Rathore (supra) in which the Hon'ble High Court after considering the relevant facts and judgments in the case of M.S. Panwar (supra) and S.P. Takvs. The Central Administrative & ors. in DBCWP No.10662/2016, which have attained finality upon dismissal of SLPs vide order dated 265.07.2019, allowed conversion of the petitioner from C.P.F to G.P.F. vide Order/Judgment dated 22.10.2021.
27. I may also refer the Order/Judgement dated 17.1.2019 of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.1331/2007, titled Amita Ajit Desai and others vs The Director (I and Q/C) & Anr.. In the said case, the Hon'ble High Court was concerned with the petitioners, who had retired in the years 2006, 2009, 2011 and 2015 and relief was granted by the Hon'ble High Court, governing the petitioners therein under Central Civil Services (Pension) Scheme, 1972, paras 11, 12 and 13 thereof read as under:-
2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 37 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs ―11 The controversy is no longer res integra. In the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. S.L. Verma & Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the very same Office Memorandum. It will be helpful to refer to paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Apex Court which reads as under :-
"7 The Central Government, in our opinion, proceeded on a basic mis-conception. By reason of the said Office Memorandum dated 1.5.1987 a legal fiction was created. Only when an employee consciously opted for to continue with the CPF Scheme, he would not become a member of the Pension Scheme. It is not disputed that the said respondents did not give their options by 30.9.1987. In that view of the matter respondent Nos. 1 to 13 in view of the legal fiction created, became members of the Pension Scheme. Once they became the member of the Pension Scheme, Regulation 16 of the Bureau of Indian Standards(Terms and Condition of Service of 2 (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 648 Shraddha Talekar PS 5/8 6 931.wp.1337.2017.doc Employees Regulation, 1988) had become ipso-
facto applicable in their case also. It may be that they had made an option to continue with the CPF Scheme at a later stage but if by reason of the legal fiction created, they became members of the Pension Scheme, the question of their reverting to the CPF would not arise. The respondent No.14 has correctly arrived at a conclusion that an anomaly would be created and in fact the said purported option on the part of respondent No.1 to 13 was illegal when a request was made by respondent No.14 to the Union of India for grant of approval so that all those employees shall come within the purview of the Pension Scheme. In our opinion, the Ministry of Finance proceeded on a wrong premise that the Pension Scheme was not in existence and it was a new one. Two legal fictions, as noticed hereinbefore, were created, one by reason of the memorandum, and another by reason of the acceptance of the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.1986. In terms of such legal fictions, it will bear repetition to state, the respondent nos.1 to 13 would be deemed to have switched over to the pension scheme, which a fortiori would mean that they no longer remained in the CPF scheme."
12 On perusal of the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clearly revealed that by reason of the said Office Memorandum dated 1st May 1987, a legal fiction was created. It has been held that only when an employee consciously opted to continue with the CPF Scheme, he would not become a member of the 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 38 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs Pension Scheme. It has been held that if no option is exercised by an employee, prior to the date specified in the Office Memorandum dated 1st May 1987, the employee shall be deemed to have automatically come over to the Pension Scheme.
13 We find that the aforesaid directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court would clearly cover the case of the petitioners. Undisputedly, none of the petitioner has opted for the CPF Scheme under the Office Memorandum dated 1st May 1987. In that view of the matter, we find that in view of the Office Memorandum dated 1st May 1987, the petitioners would be deemed to be covered by the Pension Scheme.‖
28. From the aforesaid, it is evident that in spite of their being the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaspal Kaur (supra), various Hon'ble High Courts have followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.L. Verma (supra). In the identical facts and circumstances after considering various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble High Courts have not found the claim of the similarly placed person(s) barred by limitation, delay and laches. Even in Jaspal Kaur (supra), the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L. Verma (supra) has not been considered, whereas by the Hon'ble High Courts, various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on limitation as well as the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L. Verma (supra) and in Jaspal Kaur (supra) have been considered.
29. I have also gone through the judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents. I have already noted herein above that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaspal Kaur (supra) has been considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras. So far as judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Manju Sahgel (supra) is concerned, in the said case, though the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaspal Kaur (supra) has been considered, however, neither the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.L. Verma (supra) has been considered nor the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Dr. R.N. Virmani (supra) has been considered. I have also gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar (supra). However, I find that the facts and issue in the said case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were entirely different. I have also gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Mrs. Kamljit Hanjan (supra). Though similar claim of the similarly placed persons had been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court, however, in the said case, none of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of the Hon'ble High Courts, referred to above, have been considered.
30. From the aforesaid, it is evident that there are two sets of judgments. In one set of judgments, the Hon'ble High 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 39 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs Courts after considering the relevant OMs of 1987 & 1988 and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L. Verma (supra), Jaspal Kaur (supra) and also various judgments on the point of limitation, delay and laches, have allowed the claim of similarly placed persons whereas there is another set of judgments in which Single Bench of this Tribunal and/or Division Bench of this Tribunal has dismissed claim of the similarly placed persons.
31. I am of the considered view that once issue has been considered and the same has been allowed by the Hon'ble High Courts after considering the various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, including in the case of Jaspal Kaur (supra) and objection of limitation and law thereon, the judgments of the Hon'ble High Courts would be binding and not the judgment(s) of the Single Bench and/or the Division Bench of this Tribunal on the same issue. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the applicants are entitled for conversion from C.P.F. to G.P.F. and the applicants' claim is not barred by limitation, delay and laches.
32. In view of the aforesaid, I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid common Order/Judgment dated 17.1.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Member (J) and respectfully, I am not in agreement with the aforesaid common Order/Judgment dated 17.1.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Member (A) in the aforesaid OAs. Order accordingly.‖ (emphasis supplied)
16. The above mentioned decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Smt. Shashi Kiran (supra) on which reliance had also been placed by this Tribunal while deciding the aforesaid case, the University of Delhi had preferred Civil Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled University of Delhi vs. Smt. Shashi Kiran and others and other connected cases, reported in (2022) 15 SCC 325 in which the following observations has been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-
"30.1. The distinction between cases in this batch as against the other batches was noted thus : (Shashi Kiran case [Shashi Kiran v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4819] , SCC OnLine Del paras 23 & 25-27) ―23. The last category is the Shashi Kiran batch. Here, the University staff, who constituted the writ petitioners, had consciously opted for the CPF benefits. Their grievance was that of discriminatory exclusion. They had approached the court, contending that when 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 40 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs they sought for options, the respondents refused to extend it, saying that the previous extensions had ended and later, that UGC and the Central Government had refused to grant approval.
***
25. The discrimination complained of by the appellants in Shashi Kiran's batch of cases is that even though the deadline of 30-9-1987 was not deemed sacrosanct by the University (and through omission and, therefore, tacit approval, by UGC and the Central Government) a large number of employees who had not opted either way were allowed to switch over to the Pension Scheme through options given over 14 years, by 12 different extensions. Given that the ground realities had undergone a sea change, the CPF scheme was unfeasible and had lost viability; on the other hand, the Pension Scheme was more beneficial. These appellants argue that in such a situation, when 2469 staff members opted for pension on various dates during these extensions, when they wished to do so, the respondents unfairly refused the benefit.
26. The learned Single Judge's view has some logic in it because the University refused the Pension Scheme benefits in case of those who had chosen it : in Virmani case [R.N. Virmani v. University of Delhi, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2799] , by default (i.e. no option, which meant deemed option) and in the other cases, because of the option for CPF, given after the date prescribed. While the logic for directing relief in the first category (Virmani) is sound, the second category was given relief by ignoring that they consciously wished to switch over to the CPF scheme, but after the cut-off date. Thus, the learned Single Judge ignored the conscious choice made only on the ground that the choice or option for CPF was after the cut-off date. Now, this has led to a peculiar situation where those who opted for CPF benefits have been divided into two categories : one, who opted before the cut-off date and two, those who opted after the cut- off date. The latter have been given relief. That is also the basis for refusing relief to the former, who are appellants in this batch.
27. As noticed earlier, 2469 staff members are enjoying the benefit of the Pension Scheme, on account of the choice or option made by them.‖ 30.2. It was thus observed : (Shashi Kiran case [Shashi Kiran v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4819] , SCC OnLine Del paras 28-31) ―28. If these facts are taken together with the Central Government's conceded stand in permitting staff members and employees in other institutions, including educational institutions such as IIT Kanpur, the Department of Atomic Energy and Council for Scientific and Industrial Research to opt in extended dates for switch over qua its employees, the rejection of UGC's 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 41 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs request that the conversion date be extended till 31-12- 2003, reveals the arbitrariness and non-application of mind by the Central Government.
29. That the Central Government permitted change over as late as till 31-12-2003 i.e. before the sixth pay commission recommendations (introducing CPF benefits to all those employed later, universally with effect from 1-1-2004). This aspect assumes critical importance, because the Central Government (and UGC) admit that all those who opted after the cut-off date (and many of them having opted for CPF earlier) have been granted benefits under the Pension Scheme. The ground realities with respect to the nature of benefits that accrue to CPF optees in comparison with GPF/Pension optees paints a stark picture. One should keep in mind that while opting for such schemes, employees cannot gaze into the crystal ball, as it were, and speculate whether the existing state of affairs would continue. At the time when these options were sought and given, those opting for CPF were reasonably certain that having regard to the nature of contributions and the rate of interest, the end package would compare favourably with Pension optees, with respect to returns earned at the stage of superannuation. In other words, when the options were given, these appellants were in employment; neither they, nor for that matter the respondents could have visualised a drastic fall in the interest rates, which severely undermined the CPF option and shrunk the ultimate lump sum CPF benefit available to these appellants. While examining whether a statute once valid and upheld as such on the ground of Article 14 ceases to be so due to later developments and with passage of time, the Supreme Court has declared in a number of judgments that the earlier declaration of validity or basis of classification cannot be the basis to deny the arbitrariness of the law, if it is proved to be so later. (Refer to State of M.P. v. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. [State of M.P. v. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd., 1964 SCC OnLine SC 121 : (1964) 6 SCR 846 : AIR 1964 SC 1179] ; Narottam Kishore Deb Varmanv. Union of India [Narottam Kishore Deb Varman v. Union of India, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 122 : (1964) 7 SCR 55 : AIR 1964 SC 1590] ; Shri Admar Mutt v. HRCEC [Shri Admar Mutt v. HRCEC, (1979) 4 SCC 642 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 16] ; Motor General Traders v. State of A.P. [Motor General Traders v. State of A.P., (1984) 1 SCC 222] ) In Shri Admar Mutt [Shri Admar Mutt v. HRCEC, (1979) 4 SCC 642 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 16] it was held that : (Motor General Traders case [Motor General Traders v. State of A.P., (1984) 1 SCC 222] , SCC p. 237, para 22) ‗22. ... there is a firm foundation laid in support of the proposition that what was once a non-discriminatory piece of legislation may in course of time become discriminatory and be exposed to a successful challenge on the ground that it violated Article 14 of the Constitution.' 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 42 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
30. In this case, clearly when the appellants opted for CPF benefits, they did so without premonition of future developments. The net result was that as between two individuals in the same grade and post, carrying the same pay scale, one who opted for the Pension Scheme was entitled to a substantial amount and future adjustments in pension whenever Dearness Allowance were to be enhanced. However, for the appellants, there was no such advantage; they saw a shrinking package on account of later developments -- notably the drop in interest rates. Now, interest at the rate or anyway, somewhere near the rates, which prevailed when the scheme was introduced, was one of the significant basis for the CPF scheme. With a drastic change in the rates, those opting for CPF were at a grave disadvantage. To compound their problems, the University's interpretation of a fairly clear Office Memorandum (dated 1-5-1987) injected much confusion. The third factor is that even amongst University staffers, 12 extensions were given and a large number of options for the Pension Scheme were furnished -- both in respect of those who opted for CPF earlier and those who did not. Taking the totality of circumstances, the University's insistence to pin the appellants to the options they originally exercised is discriminatory.
31. The other reason why this Court is inclined to allow this appeal is that neither the Central Government nor UGC have furnished a single reason for why option to switch over to the Pension Scheme was permitted up to 31-12-2003 to several other autonomous institutions and denied to the appellants. This singular omission to say what compelled the Central Government to deny the petitioners the benefit of switch over, while permitting those in other institutions, in the opinion of the court, clearly amounts to discrimination. The mere fact that the petitioners are working in the University whereas the other employees work in other institutions is not sufficient, given that the consistent stand is that options once given cannot be altered. Therefore, it is held that denying the right to opt to the Pension Scheme in Shashi Kiran [Shashi Kiran v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 5759 of 2010 sub nom Kanta Batra v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2797] batch is unsustainable; it has resulted in arbitrariness.‖ The appeals in this batch of cases were thus allowed.
31. The University accepted the decision in R.N. Virmani [R.N. Virmani v. University of Delhi, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2799] batch of cases and as such no appeal has been preferred. It, however, is in appeal in the other two batch of cases. At this stage, some of the documents which were not part of the record before the High Court but were placed before us, must be adverted to:
2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 43 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs 31.1. On 8-8-2001, a communication was addressed by UGC to the Joint Secretary, MHRD. The relevant portion of the letter was:
―... Many autonomous bodies including the universities have adopted the basic policy of this circular but they have not restricted to the cut-off date and allowed their own cut-off dates to their employees for switch over from CP fund to GP fund. Some of the Institutions have allowed this changeover till 1998. However, some of the institutions under UGC who have shown better discipline and also some of the employees of UGC itself are representing now to allow their employees a chance to switch over from CP fund to GP fund. In UGC, this number is 5 or 6 only. Respective Ministries presumably have also not issued any circular allowing this benefit to the employees of autonomous bodies under their control. This has led to a situation where different disparity among the employees in different autonomous bodies as far as benefits under CP fund to GP fund is concerned. For example, IIT, Kanpur allowed conversion until 30-7- 1998 and kept this open for charge over for another fifteen years after continuous service, in case they do not switch over by that date. Copy of IIT, Kanpur letter dated Atomic Energy, Govt. of India vide their letter 2/1/99/SCS/665 dated 12-10-2000 have also extended another chance to opt for said switch over in case of Technical employees of DAE. Similarly, CISR have allowed one more option to all its employees to switch over. Their letter No. 17(197)/90-EII dated 25-1-1999 is enclosed for reference.
On demand of employees of UGC and also the employees of the Universities, the Commission considers it necessary to obtain consent of your Ministry to allow one more cut-off date to stop this disparity in UGC and other autonomous institutions within UGC umbrella specially in all those institutions where the pension scheme already exists and only a few employees have been left out for switch over from CP fund to GP fund. The cost of extending the scheme in those left out cases will also be very little so as to be called an additional burden on the exchequer. Extension of the conversion scheme in institutions where pension scheme is already existing is also necessary as Government have extended the revised pay scales on the condition that these institutions will maintain parity in all terms and conditions of service of its employees with the corresponding category of employees in Government of India.
I would therefore request you to please consider this suggestion and extend the schemes of conversion from CP fund to GP fund scheme to all employees of autonomous bodies (or to employees of UGC/Central & Deemed Universities) who already have pension scheme since inception, and notify some clear cut-off future date, 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 44 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs so that those institutions do not fix their own cut-off date/dates and create disparities and confusion.‖ 31.2. The stand of the MHRD is clear from one of the communications, namely, Letter dated 24-10-2002 addressed by the MHRD to UGC which stated:
―2. Since the University Grants Commission is the funding agency and it itself had extended the Government policy on conversion from CPF to GPF to the Central Universities and Deemed Universities receiving 100% maintenance grant from UGC, no specific government instructions are warranted to decide the cases of those employees of the University of Delhi who had been permitted irregular conversion from CPF to GPF/Pension Scheme after the prescribed cut-off date.
3. You are, therefore, advised to decide the issue at your end without referring it to this Ministry.‖ 31.3. Soon after the decision [Shashi Kiran v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4819] of the Division Bench of the High Court, a communication was addressed by the University on 13-10-2016 to MHRD that about 306 employees would be eligible to draw pension in terms of said decision.
31.4. A Letter dated 23-1-2017 was written by the Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Education, to the Registrar of the University. Para 2 of the Letter stated as under:
―2. The directions/observations in the matter are as under for compliance:
(i) To allow GPF/Pension of Government in respect of those employees who were in service as on 1-1-1986, unless they have specifically and in writing chosen the option to stay with CPF. However, in respect of the employees who have already retired, the question of surrender of the University's portion of the CPF as already taken by them, will have to be dealt with by the University of Delhi on consultation with UGC/MHRD.
Delhi University/Colleges concerned will ensure to recoup their contributions under the CPF Scheme with simple interest of 8% per annum. Thus while seeking option from the employees this point will have to be appropriately taken care by the MHRD/UGC/DU and Colleges concerned.
(ii) In all other cases, University of Delhi is advised to file an appeal against the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in consultation with UGC/MHRD.
(iii) In case any other employee who was not in service as on 1-1-1986 and joined thereafter, the question of application of order of Department of pension dated 1-5-1987 shall not arise and as such if any order of any Court of Law allows pension in their cases, the University of Delhi may have to appropriately file appeal in the appropriate appellate court in consultation with UGC and MHRD.
2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 45 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
3. The University may take appropriate action in light of the above and also to defend the interest of Govt. of India in all such Court cases arising in the matter.‖ 31.5. On 29-3-2019 a Letter was written by MHRD to the Secretary, UGC. The relevant portion of the Letter was:
―2. The matter of non-settlement of pension issue of such employees of University of Delhi and its Colleges who retired after the order was passed by the Single Bench of Delhi High Court on 30-4-2014 [R.N. Virmani v. University of Delhi, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2799] , [Kanta Batra v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2797] , [N.C. Bakshi v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2798] on the grounds that UGC counsel had mentioned in the court that the expenditure on pension was unapproved whereas those who retired prior to 30-4-2014 were allowed pension by the University.
3. The matter has since been examined in consultation with d/o expenditure and it has been decided that if in this case pension was allowed to a group of employees by DU, out of which some have already been allowed pension on having retired after recovering their CPF accumulation approximate to the employer's contribution, then the employees in this case may be allowed pension, if they belong to the same group which was allowed switch over from CPF to GPF by DU and where a few employees have already been availing themselves of pension and if employer's contribution to CPF has been recovered in their case, provided they are not related in any way whatsoever to the case decided by the Delhi High Court on 24-8-2016 [Shashi Kiran v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4819] .‖ 31.6. Soon thereafter a communication was addressed by UGC to the University, the subject being:
―Release of pension benefits in respect of employees
-- who have opted pension scheme from 1989 to 1998 and have retired after the judgment of High Court of Delhi -- Regarding.‖ The relevant portion of the letter was: ―I am directed to inform you that the MHRD vide its Letter No. 4-41/2014-Desk (U) dated 29-3-2019 (copy enclosed) has informed that the matter has since been examined in consultation with d/o expenditure and it has been decided that if in this case pension was allowed to a group of employees by DU, out of which some have already been allowed pension of having retired after recovering their CPF accumulation approximate to the employer's contribution, then the employees in this case may be allowed pension, if they belong to the same group which was allowed switch over from CPF to GPF by DU and where a few employees have already been availing themselves of pension and if employer's contribution to CPF has been recovered in 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 46 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs their case, provided they are not related in any way whatsoever to the case decided by the Delhi High Court on 24-8-2016 [Shashi Kiran v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4819] .‖ 31.7. On 2-3-2019, a communication was addressed by the Under-Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services to the Chairpersons of Life Insurance Corporation of India and other insurance corporations in public sector. The subject of the letter was:
―Final option for pension to leftover employees of public sector insurance companies (―PSICs‖), namely, Life Insurance Corporation of India, General Insurance Corporation of India, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, United India Insurance Company Limited, National Insurance Company Limited and New India Assurance Company Limited : Reg.‖ The communication stated:
―The issue of grant of final option for pension to leftover employees of public sector insurance companies (―PSICs‖) was under examination with the Central Government. It has now been decided to allow a final option to those who joined service on or before 28-6-1995 to opt for pension as a retirement benefit.
2. PSICs are requested to submit to this Department a detailed scheme for approval and notification incorporating, inter alia, the following parameters:
(i) In the case of serving employees who opt for pension, employer's contribution along with the interest to be transferred to the pension fund. In addition, they would also contribute a certain multiple of pay as was done in the case of public sector banks;
(ii) For retired employees/families of deceased employees a certain multiple of employer's contribution to Provident Fund and interest thereon received by the employee on retirement to be refunded, as was done in the case of public sector banks.
(iii) Pension/Family Pension to those who now opt to join the pension scheme, will be payable with effect from the date notification of the scheme. However, the employees retiring after that date will be eligible for pension with reference to their respective date of retirement.‖
32. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties who inter alia invited attention of this Court to the documents adverted hereinabove, this Court passed the order dated 2-3-2020 [Union of India v. S. Subbiah, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1377] , which stated : (S. Subbiah case [Union of India v. S. Subbiah, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1377] , SCC OnLine SC paras 2-9) 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 47 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs ―2. Though their submissions are concluded, certain doubts have arisen after the learned counsel invited our attention to various documents on record.
3. Some of those documents are (i) Letter dated 8-8- 2001 from University Grants Commission (for short ―UGC‖) to the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (for short ―MHRD‖) placed on record at pp. 46-47 of the Convenience Volume; (ii) the response dated 24-10-2002 appended at p. 48 of the Convenience Volume, from the MHRD to the aforesaid Letter dated 8-8-2001; (iii) the Letter dated 13-10-2016 written by Delhi University to the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, MHRD appended at p. 58 of the Convenience Volume); and (iv) the Letter dated 2-3-2019 from the Government of India (Ministry of Finance), at p. 63 of the Convenience Volume, insofar as certain institutions like LIC and other insurance companies are concerned.
4. One of the basic issues that arises in the matter is whether in terms of Para 3.1 of OM dated 1-5-1987 was it competent for the institutions/authorities concerned to keep on extending the period within which options could be exercised by the employees concerned.
5. It is in this light that the Division Bench [Shashi Kiran v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4819] of the High Court in paras 26 and 27 referred to certain facts including the stand of the Central Government constituted in permitting several members and employees in other institutions including educational institutions such as IIT, Kanpur to give option by extending dates for switch over till 31-12-2003.
6. All these communications do not spell out any consistent stand on the Central Government. Though the Central Government and UGC are parties to the present list, no stand has been taken on record by filing any appropriate affidavit.
7. In the circumstances, we call upon Central Government (Ministry of HRD) as well as UGC to file affidavits within seven days from today and place their stand on record giving complete details.
8. Delhi University is also called upon to place on record following information by way of an affidavit:
(a) How many employees who were employed before 1-1-1986, had opted to be covered under CPF Scheme by 30-9-1987.
(b) How many employees exercised the option to be part of CPF Scheme after 30-9-1987 but within first two extensions allowed by Delhi University.
(c) How many employees who had opted to be part of CPF, exercised the reverse option granted to them and opted to be under GPF.
2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 48 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
(d) How many writ petitioners wanted similar benefit and extension of some facilities as was granted to the employees referred to in Para (c) above.
(e) How many employees are presently in service who answer description that they are employees from before 1-1-1986 and are still part of CPF Scheme.
9. Copies of the communications referred to in the earlier part of the order shall also be supplied along with a copy of this order to the Central Government and UGC.‖ 32.1. In response to the questions posed in the order dated 2-3-2020, following information was supplied through the affidavit filed on behalf of the University:
―3. That in pursuance of the aforementioned directions, the petitioner is providing the following itemized response.
(a) How many employees who were employed before 1-1-1986, had opted to be covered under CPF Scheme by 30-9-1987.
Response:
Approximately 2611, who were employed before 1-1- 1986, had opted for CPF Scheme by 30-9-1987
(b) How many employees exercised the option to be part of CPF Scheme after 30-9-1987 but within first two extensions allowed by Delhi University.
Response:
That approximately 626 employees exercised the option to be part of CPF Scheme after 30-9-1987 but within the initial two extensions allowed by the Delhi University.
(c) How many employees who had opted to be part of CPF, exercised the reverse option granted to them and opted to be under GPF.
Response:
That approximately 2469 employees who had opted to remain in CPF exercised the reverse option granted to them and opted to come over to GPF.
(d) How many writ petitioners wanted similar benefit and extension of same facilities as was granted to the employees referred to in Para (c) above.
Response:
Under Category 1 i.e. N.C. Bakshi batch, 172 employees wanted similar benefit of extension as was granted to the employees referred to in Para C above whereas the number of such employees falling under Category 2 i.e. Shashi Kiran batch is 75.
(e) How many employees are presently in service who answer the description that they are employees from before 1-1-1986 and are still part of CPF Scheme.
2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 49 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs Response:
51 respondents belonging to Category 1 i.e. N.C. Bakshi Batch and 86 respondents under Category 2 i.e. Shashi Kiran batch were appointed before 1-1-1986 are presently in service and they are still part of CPF Scheme.‖ 32.2. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India, Ministry of Education, answer to Question 4 was given as under:
―The Department of Pension and Pensioners' welfare OM dated 1-5-1987 provides that all CPF beneficiaries, who were in service on 1-1-1986 and who are still in service on the date of issue of these orders will be deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme. These orders apply to all Civilian Central Government employees who are subscribing to the Contributory Provident Fund under the Contributory Provident Fund Rules (India), 1962. Further, d/o Financial Services vide OM dated 2-3-2019 has allowed the employees of public sector insurance companies for a final option to those who joined service on or before 28-6-1995, to opt for pension as a retirement benefit. This OM is not applicable to Central Government as well as autonomous bodies employees.‖ It was further stated:
―4. At the very outset, it is informed that in case this Hon'ble Court decides the appeal against the University of Delhi and the Union of India, the financial implications of the same would have a snowball effect, as the same would become applicable to all the Central Universities throughout India, which would open a floodgate of litigation.‖
33. The matter was thereafter extensively argued on behalf of the University. It was submitted:
33.1. The difference between CPF and GPF was always in existence and as held by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Krishena Kumar v. Union of India [Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 207 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 112] , the rules governing the Provident Fund and its contribution would be entirely different from the rules governing the Pension Scheme.
33.2. Under the Notification dated 1-5-1987, the choice was completely left to the employees and it was purely optional. An optional scheme involving financial decisions could not be converted into a compulsory scheme. 33.3. Comparison with employees of IITs, Department of Atomic Energy and Insurance Companies was impermissible as the employees of the University and these organisations did not form a homogeneous class. Their terms and conditions of service, financing pattern and financing departments were completely different.
2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 50 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
34. Number of learned Senior Counsel and other learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent employees and submitted:
34.1. Though, Notification dated 1-5-1987 was to the knowledge of everyone, the subsequent extensions and chances to switch over granted by the University were not brought to the knowledge of all the employees and the respondents were thus prejudiced.
34.2. If the mandate under the Notification dated 1-5-
1987 was to be followed scrupulously, the University could not have granted subsequent option of switch over. But 2469 employees were allowed to ―come over‖ to GPF after the cut-off date. Going by various communications placed before the Court, such employees were allowed full benefits under GPF. The case of the present respondent employees was not, in any way, different from such 2469 employees. 34.3. The University being a Central University, its employees would rank on similar footing as that of the organisations like IITs and AIIMS. If extensions were granted to employees of the IITs, the employees of the University were also entitled to similar benefit. 34.4. The Division Bench was, therefore, justified in setting aside the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Shashi Kiran [Shashi Kiran v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 5759 of 2010 sub nom Kanta Batra v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2797] batch of cases but affirming the view in other two batches.
35. The common thread which ran through the decisions of the learned Single Judge pertaining to three batches of cases, was that the text of the Notification dated 1-5-1987 was clear that if no option was exercised by the employees concerned before the cut-off date, they would be deemed to have ―come over‖ to GPF. It was only a positive option exercised by the employees to continue to be under CPF which could have departed from such deeming provision. Once exercised, the option was final and as such, there could be no switch over from those who had consciously opted to be under CPF. Further, relying on the decision in S.L. Verma [Union of India v. S.L. Verma, (2006) 12 SCC 53 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 312] , it was observed that any exercise of option after the deadline or the cut-off would be inconsequential. It was on this premise that the cases in R.N. Virmani [R.N. Virmani v. University of Delhi, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2799] batch of cases and N.C. Bakshi [N.C. Bakshi v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2798] batch of cases were allowed by the learned Single Judge. As regards Shashi Kiran [Shashi Kiran v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 5759 of 2010 sub nom Kanta Batra v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2797] batch of cases, the learned Single Judge observed, that once the conscious decision was taken and option was exercised to continue to be under CPF, there was ―no room for any come back situation‖. The cases in the third batch were therefore, rejected.
2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 51 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
36. However, the learned Single Judge observed that 2469 employees who were given facility of such switch over after the cut-off date, though they had also consciously opted to be under CPF, were not before the Court, and as such, their cases had to be left untouched. It is a matter of record and which aspect is clear from the communications referred to in para 31 hereinabove that most of those 2469 employees, at the time of retirement, were given all the benefits that were available to those who had opted to be under GPF. Thus, those 2649 employees were certainly allowed to avail the benefit of switch over which was not granted in favour of the employees in the third batch of cases.
37. Affirming the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the first two batches of cases, the Division Bench set aside the view of the learned Single Judge only in the third batch of cases i.e. in Shashi Kiran [Shashi Kiran v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 5759 of 2010 sub nom Kanta Batra v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2797] batch of cases. As the observations made by the Division Bench indicate, the matter was placed on the ground of discrimination and principles of equality.
40. We now turn to Shashi Kiran [Shashi Kiran v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 5759 of 2010 sub nom Kanta Batra v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2797] batch of cases.
41. As indicated by the University in its affidavit filed after the order dated 2-3-2020 [ Letter dated 21-12-2006, which was extracted in the decisions of the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court.] was passed by this Court, 2611 employees had opted to be under CPF Scheme by the cut-off date i.e. by 30-9-1987. Additionally, 626 employees exercised the option to be under CPF after the original cut-off, but within initial two extensions granted by the University. Thus, as against the entire body of employees of the University, 3237 (2611+626) employees had exercised the option to be under CPF. Out of these 3237 employees, by virtue of further extensions granted by the University, about 2469 employees exercised the reverse option and opted to ―come over‖ to GPF, leaving only 768 (3237-2469) employees to be under CPF. The answers to queries ‗d' and ‗e' given by the University in its affidavit indicate that the number of employees in CPF Scheme was 86 while the petitioners in Shashi Kiran [Shashi Kiran v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 5759 of 2010 sub nom Kanta Batra v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2797] batch were 75. We are, thus, concerned with 75 original petitioners in Shashi Kiran [Shashi Kiran v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 5759 of 2010 sub nom Kanta Batra v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2797] batch of cases.
42. In Krishena Kumar [Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 207 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 112] , the distinction between the Provident Fund Scheme and the Pension Scheme was considered by the Constitution Bench 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 52 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs of this Court. In that case, the employees who had joined the service on or after 1-4-1957 were to get covered automatically by the Pension Scheme and insofar as employees who were already in service on 1-4-1957, they were given an option either to retain the Provident Fund benefits or to switch over to the pensionary benefits. About 12 extensions were thereafter granted so that the options could be exercised by the employees within the extended time. Those who had chosen not to exercise such option, were before this Court.
43. The basic nature of the Scheme was discussed in para 7 of the decision as under : (Krishena Kumar case [Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 207 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 112] , SCC p. 221) ―7. We may now examine these options. The Railway Board's Letter No. F(E) 50-RTI/6 dated 16-11-1957 introduced the pension scheme for railway servants. It said that the President had been pleased to decide that the pension rules, as liberalised vide Railway Board's Memo No. E-48 OPC-208 dated 8-7-1950 as amended or clarified from time to time should apply ‗(a) to all Railway servants who entered service on or after issue of that letter and (b) to all non-pensionable railway servants who were in service on 1-4-1957 or have joined railway service between that date and the date of issue of the order'. The Railway servants referred to in para (b) were required to exercise an unconditional and unambiguous option on the prescribed form on or before 31-3-1958 electing for the pensionary benefits or retaining their existing retirement benefits under the State Railway Provident Fund Rules. It further said that any such employee from whom an option form prescribed for the employee's option was not received within the above time-limit or whose option was incomplete or conditional or ambiguous shall be deemed to have opted for the pensionary benefits and if any such employee had died by that date or on or after 1-4- 1957 without exercising option for the pensionary scheme, his dues would be paid on the provident fund system. The period of validity of this option was first extended up to 30-6-1958, 31-12-1958, 31-3-1959 and lastly up to 30-9-1959. There could, therefore, be no doubt that those who did not opt for the pension scheme had ample opportunity to choose between the two.‖
44. Reliance was placed by the petitioners before this Court on the decision in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 :
1983 SCC (L&S) 145] . Paras 16, 29 and 30 of the decision in Krishena Kumar [Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 207 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 112] dealt with the issue as under : (Krishena Kumar case [Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 207 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 112] , SCC pp. 225-26 & 230-31) ―16. As the basis or justification for striking or reading down para 3.1 on Nakara [D.S. 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 53 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145] ratio, it is urged that all the Railway employees numbering about 22 lakhs comprising 16,22,000 in service and about 6 lakh pensioners constitute one family and must be treated as one class as the government's obligation to look after the retired Railway employees both under the pension scheme and the provident fund scheme being the same, they could not be treated differently. Any differential treatment will be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In Nakara case [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145] the date arbitrarily chosen was struck down and as a result the revised formula for computing pension was made applicable to all the retired pensioners. The same principle, it is urged, has to be extended to the Provident Fund retirees also otherwise there would be discrimination. It is stated that though at the time of choosing between Provident Fund and Pension Scheme both the alternatives appeared to be more or less equal and the retired provident funders took their lump sum yet subsequently stage by stage the pensioners' benefits were increased in such ways and to such extent that it became more and more discriminatory against the provident funders old and new. It was because of this discrimination that successive options were given by the Railway Board for the provident funders to become pensioners. Hence the submission that this limitation must go, and all the provident funders must be deemed to have become pensioners subject to the condition that the government contribution received by them along with interest thereon is refunded or adjusted. Obviously this gives no importance to the condition in the notifications that option once exercised shall be final and binding and to the fact that in each option a cut-off date was there related to the purpose of giving that option.
***
29. The Court in Nakara [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145] was not satisfied with the explanation that the legislation had defined the class with clarity and precision and it would not be the function of this Court to enlarge the class. The Court held in para 65 of the Report : (SCC pp. 344-45) ‗65. ... With the expanding horizons of socio-economic justice, the Socialist Republic and Welfare State which we endeavour to set up and largely influenced by the fact that the old men who retired when emoluments were comparatively low and are exposed to vagaries of continuously rising prices, the falling value of the rupee consequent upon inflationary inputs, we are satisfied that by introducing an arbitrary eligibility criterion:―being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date‖ for being eligible for the liberalised pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class, the classification 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 54 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs being not based on any discernible rational principle and having been found wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved by grant of liberalised pension and the eligibility criteria devised being thoroughly arbitrary, we are of the view that the eligibility for liberalised pension scheme of ―being in service on the specified date and retiring subsequent to that date‖ in impugned memoranda, Exts. P-1 and P-2, violates Article 14 and is unconstitutional and is struck down. Both the memoranda shall be enforced and implemented as read down as under : In other words, in Ext. P-1, the words:
‗that in respect of the government servants who were in service on 31-3-1979 and retiring from service on or after that date';
and in Ext. P-2, the words:
‗the new rates of pension are effective from 1-4-1979 and will be applicable to all service officers who became/become non-effective on or after that date' are unconstitutional and are struck down with this specification that the date mentioned therein will be relevant as being one from which the liberalised pension scheme becomes operative to all pensioners governed by 1972 Rules irrespective of the date of retirement. Omitting the unconstitutional part it is declared that all pensioners governed by the 1972 Rules and Army Pension Regulations shall be entitled to pension as computed under the liberalised pension scheme from the specified date, irrespective of the date of retirement. Arrears of pension prior to the specified date as per fresh computation is not admissible.'
30. Thus the Court treated the pension retirees only as a homogeneous class. The PF retirees were not in mind. The Court also clearly observed that while so reading down it was not dealing with any fund and there was no question of the same cake being divided amongst larger number of the pensioners than would have been under the notification with respect to the specified date. All the pensioners governed by the 1972 Rules were treated as a class because payment of pension was a continuing obligation on the part of the State till the death of each of the pensioners and, unlike the case of Contributory Provident Fund, there was no question of a fund in liberalising pension.‖
45. The distinction between two Schemes was dealt with in para 32 of the decision as under : (Krishena Kumar case [Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 207 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 112] , SCC pp. 232-33) ―32. In Nakara [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145] it was never held that both the pension retirees and the PF retirees formed a homogeneous class and that any further classification among them would be violative of Article
14. On the other hand the Court clearly observed that it was not dealing with the problem of a ―fund‖. The 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 55 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs Railway Contributory Provident Fund is by definition a fund. Besides, the government's obligation towards an employee under CPF Scheme to give the matching contribution begins as soon as his account is opened and ends with his retirement when his rights qua the government in respect of the Provident Fund is finally crystallised and thereafter no statutory obligation continues. Whether there still remained a moral obligation is a different matter. On the other hand under the Pension Scheme the Government's obligation does not begin until the employee retires when only it begins and it continues till the death of the employee. Thus, on the retirement of an employee government's legal obligation under the Provident Fund account ends while under the Pension Scheme it begins. The rules governing the Provident Fund and its contribution are entirely different from the rules governing pension. It would not, therefore, be reasonable to argue that what is applicable to the pension retirees must also equally be applicable to PF retirees. This being the legal position the rights of each individual PF retiree finally crystallised on his retirement whereafter no continuing obligation remained while, on the other hand, as regard pension retirees, the obligation continued till their death. The continuing obligation of the State in respect of pension retirees is adversely affected by fall in rupee value and rising prices which, considering the corpus already received by the PF retirees they would not be so adversely affected ipso facto. It cannot, therefore, be said that it was the ratio decidendi in Nakara [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145] that the State's obligation towards its PF retirees must be the same as that towards the pension retirees. An imaginary definition of obligation to include all the government retirees in a class was not decided and could not form the basis for any classification for the purpose of this case. Nakara [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145] cannot, therefore, be an authority for this case.‖ Having observed that the Pension Scheme and the Provident Fund Scheme were structurally different, it was then concluded that the retirees in both categories did not belong to the same class and that there was no discrimination. The challenge was, therefore, rejected.
46. At this stage we must also consider that in Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Dwarka Prasad Koolwal [Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Dwarka Prasad Koolwal, (2015) 12 SCC 51 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 315] , a Bench of two Judges of this Court found that an employee had no inherent right to demand extension for exercising the switch over option. It was observed : (SCC p. 72, para 58) ―58. When the Pension Regulations and the GPF Scheme are read together, the necessary conclusion is that an employee must give his option for either 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 56 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs continuing to be a member of the CPF Scheme or to switch over to the Pension and GPF Scheme. This option had to be exercised within a period of 90 days from the cut-off date, that is, 28-11-1988. But RSEB, in its wisdom, chose to extend the time for exercising the switch over option over a period of 8 years by giving several opportunities to the employees through its notices. The right of an employee to switch over was, therefore, limited in time by the Pension and GPF Scheme. However, administrative orders issued by RSEB from time to time extended the period for exercising the option. No employee had any inherent right to either demand an extension of the period for exercising the switch over option or claim a right to exercise the switch over option at any time prior to his retirement, and no such right has been shown to us.‖
47.Krishena Kumar [Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 207 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 112] was a case where the retirees from two categories, namely, Pension Fund and Provident Fund, were taken to be distinct and different and as such the plea on the ground of discrimination was rejected. As the judgment of the Division Bench discloses, the matter was considered by it from the standpoint of discrimination between the same category of persons, that is to say, those who had opted to be under CPF. The different groups in the same category were:
47.1. Those who had not exercised any option but continued to make payment of contribution towards CPF (R.N. Virmani [R.N. Virmani v. University of Delhi, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2799] batch of cases).
47.2. Those who exercised the option to be under CPF but the option was exercised after the cut-off. Since the option was exercised after the cut-off, they were deemed to have ―come over‖ to GPF and were granted benefit (N.C. Bakshi [N.C. Bakshi v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2798] batch of cases).
48. It was against these three sub-categories coming from the same category of employees that the argument of discrimination was considered by the Division Bench. Such was not the case in Krishena Kumar [Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 207 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 112] or Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran [Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Dwarka Prasad Koolwal, (2015) 12 SCC 51 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 315] . The matter was further considered by the Division Bench in the context of the employees of educational institutions such as IITs, who are directly under the Central Government, just as the employees of the University, which is a Central University. If the option was allowed to be exercised by granting extension to the employees of the other educational institutions, the Division Bench did not find any reason why similar choice/option could not be given to the employees in Shashi Kiran [Shashi Kiran v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 5759 of 2010 sub nom Kanta Batra v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2797] batch of cases. Additionally, 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 57 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs the feature that has been presented through the documents which have subsequently come on record is that even with respect to the employees of insurance corporations similar options and extensions were granted. 47.3. Those who consciously exercised the option to be under CPF; but taking advantage of further options granted through 11 extensions to switch over, had been allowed to ―come over‖ to GPF (2469 employees).
49. The differential treatment afforded to those 2469 employees as against the employees in Shashi Kiran [Shashi Kiran v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 5759 of 2010 sub nom Kanta Batra v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2797] batch of cases, was not founded on any rationale. No justifiable reason was coming forth. If those 2469 employees could be afforded chance to exercise an option of switch over to GPF, even though they had consciously opted to be under CPF, on principle of parity or equality, the case was certainly made out.
50. We may now consider the matter from the perspective of financial impact if the decision of the Division Bench is affirmed.
51. According to the Notification dated 1-5-1987, the employees joining the service after 1-1-1986 would always be under GPF. With respect to those who were in service on 1-1-1986, said employees would be deemed to have ―come over‖ to GPF unless an option to continue to be under CPF was consciously exercised before the cut-off date. Thus, when the Scheme was framed and was sought to be implemented, the authorities concerned must have taken into account the entire magnitude such as, the number of employees and the likelihood of impact on the management of the fund, so that reasonable returns can be effected by way of pension upon retirement of such persons. Going by the intent of the notification, those who were to opt for CPF, were an exception and the general rule was that everybody after 1-1-1986 would normally be covered by GPF. It is in this context that the number of original petitioners in Shashi Kiran [Shashi Kiran v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 5759 of 2010 sub nom Kanta Batra v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2797] batch of cases has to be seen.
We are concerned with only 75 persons. On the other hand, the bulk of people, namely, 2469 employees were granted the choice of reverse switch over and they were allowed all the benefits under GPF. It can reasonably be said that when the Notification dated 1-5-1987 was issued, the authorities were conscious of the possibility that all the employees may ―come over‖ to GPF. With that possibility in mind, the fund was constituted and the affairs were arranged. The shift of those 75 employees would not in any way affect the strength and the character of the fund if a direction that the entire contribution made by the authorities be returned with reasonable rate of interest is issued. These 75 petitioners had approached the Court in the year 2010. At this length of time, it is not as if any floodgates are going to open and there will be drain on the resources of the 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 58 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs State. A direction can, therefore, be issued, as was done by the learned Single Judge in para 20 of his judgment in R.N. Virmani [R.N. Virmani v. University of Delhi, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2799] batch of cases and which aspect was mentioned in the Letter dated 23-1-2017 referred to in para 31.4 hereinabove, for recouping the contribution under CPF with 8% simple interest per annum.
52. Considering the circumstances on record, in our view, the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court in Shashi Kiran [Shashi Kiran v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 5759 of 2010 sub nom Kanta Batra v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2797] batch of cases does not call for any interference except to the extent of direction for recouping of the contribution under CPF with 8% simple interest per annum. It is possible that at this length of time, some of the employees in Shashi Kiran [Shashi Kiran v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 5759 of 2010 sub nom Kanta Batra v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2797] batch of cases may not be interested in switch over to GPF. But an option must be afforded to them in such manner as the authorities deem appropriate.‖
17. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur had also considered the similar issue while deciding the D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16677/2022 and other connected cases, including the Writ Petition No.16678/2022, titled The Commissioner, KVS and another vs. Mrs. Gurmail Kaur and vide Order dated 27.7.2023, the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan affirmed the aforesaid Order dated 26.4.2022 passed by this Tribunal. The relevant portion of which are as under:-
―9. While dealing with the aspect of switch over, in all the three distinct types of eventualities as noted above, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the switch over from the C.P.F. Scheme to the G.P.F. Scheme shall be permissible and the claims of the employees shall not be barred by the doctrine of delay and laches and/or limitation, in light of the fact that the schemes as put in operation, accrued for the welfare of the employees. In essence, the very choice to select a scheme stemmed and/or formed part of a beneficial piece of legislation, thereby permitting switch over between the two schemes. Therefore, as per the dictum as enunciated in Shashi Kiran (supra), it has been categorically held that switch over shall be permissible to the employees, in the following three eventualities i.e. (i) wherein the employees had not exercised any option at all;
(ii) wherein the employees had not exercised their option by 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 59 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs the cut-off date and (iii) wherein the employees had exercised the positive option by the cut-off date but were eventually demanding a change in connection therewith.
The rationale for permitting switch over in the said eventualities, as enumerated above, was that the very choice to select a scheme accrued for the welfare of the employees.
10. Therefore, it can be said that even the employees who had originally opted to remain in the C.P.F. Scheme and subsequently sought to switch over to the Pension Scheme, on account of the latter being more beneficial to them, was permissible, especially due to the fact that non-grant of better and/or more lucrative benefits by way of pension and denying the same to one set of employees would per se be discriminatory notwithstanding the option exercised by the employees to remain in the C.P.F. Scheme.
11. In this regard, reliance can also be placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Priyabrat Singh reported in (2022) 4 JBCJ 458 (HC). In the said judgment, while dealing with two distinct viewpoints as expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaspal Kaur (supra) and Shashi Kiran (supra), it was held that:
―42. This Court is having two views of the Hon'ble Apex Court; one in the case of KVS v. Jaspal Kaur (supra) and another in the case of University of Delhi v. Shashi Kiran (supra).
43. The position of law is well settled that if there are two conflicting views of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the latest judgment is to be considered having the binding precedence, as has been held in Subhash Chandra v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board [(2009) 15 SCC 458]. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment is quoted:-
―96. A decision, as is well known, is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. In S. Pushpa [(2005 3 SCC 1], decisions of the Constitution Benches of this Court in Milind [(2001) 1 SCC 4] had not been taken into consideration. Although Chinnaiah [(2005) 1 SCC 394] was decided later on, we are bound by the same. It is now a wellsettled principle of law that a Division Bench, in case of conflict between a decision of a Division Bench of two judges and a decision of a larger Bench and in particular Constitution Bench, would be bound by the latter. (See Sardar Associates v. Punjab & Sind Bank [(2009) 8 SCC 257].)‖
44. This Court, taking into consideration the aforesaid position of law that the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is required to be followed, therefore, is of the considered view that the view as has been taken 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 60 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs by the Hon'ble Apex Court in University of Delhi v. Shashi kiran (supra) is required to be followed herein also.
45. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect and the legal position based upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court, has gone through the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and found therefrom that the view expressed therein based upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in University of Delhi v. Shashi Kiran (supra), requires no interference, since therein also the learned Central Administrative Tribunal has come to a view that in absence of any specific option furnished by one or the other employee of the organization, there cannot be any deemed option.‖
12. Therefore, by placing reliance upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in Shashi Kiran (supra), as followed by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in Priyabrat Singh (supra) and also considering the fact that the very choice to select a scheme stemmed and/or formed part of a beneficial piece of legislation, thereby permitting switch over from the C.P.F Scheme to G.P.F Scheme in all three different types of eventualities as discussed above, we are in agreement with the view given by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur vide impugned order dated 26.04.2022.‖
18. Keeping in view the aforesaid latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is apt to bring certain facts of all the cases in a tabulated form so that these cases will be adjudicated in right prospective, which are as under:-
Sl. OA No. Option exercised in Retirement Represented Retiral No. pursuance of OM of date on dues 1988 for CPF, if yes, taken date. without any (Applicant Yes/No objection No.)
1. 2108/2022 - Yes & 31.07.2015 27.09.2017 2015 30.12.1988 and while holding 03.06.2022, post of i.e., Group 'D'
2. 1477/2022 - No 31.07.2020 13.12.2018 2020
3. 985/2020 - No 2.6.2009 19.11.2018 2016
4. 1903/2019 - No 31.07.2015 04.08.2018, 2015 04.02.2019
5. 2792/2019 - No 30.06.2017 25.05.2017 2017
6. 1662/2019 - Yes & 15.12.2017 2018 7.1.1989 20.03.2018 30.10.2018
7. 2334/2022 - Yes & 2020 02.02.2018/ 2020 22.11.1988 26.06.2018, 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 61 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs 01.06.2019, 30.12.2019, 06.02.2020, 01.08.2020 and 10.11.2020
8. 2536/2021 - Yes & 30.06.2001 26.1.22018, 2001 27.9.1988 15.01.2019, 17.06.2019
9. 4036/2018 - No 31.10.2016 13.09.2016 2017
10. 4686/2018 A-1 No 30.11.2010 2010 A-2 No 29.06.2013 Legal notice 2013 A-3 No 31.08.2011 dated 2011 A-4 No 31.08.2010 12.11.2018 2010 A-5 No 01.07.2010 2010 A-6 No 31.08.2008 2008
11. 2413/2021 Yes on 06.07.2018 2009
- 23.1.1982 and 7.11.1988
12. 3075/2021 - No 2020 04.02.2020/ 2020 15/21.09.20
13. 3687/2018 - No 31.07.2013 20.03.2017 2013
14. 1363/2020 No but 2014 01.02.2019, 2014
- exercised on 07.10.2019 18.12.1982 25.09.2019, 11.12.2019
15. 1434/2019 A-1 No 2006 01.09.2006 2006 A-2 No 2006 2006 A-3 No 31.03.2011 31.01.2011 2011 A-4 No 2017 2017 A-5 No 31.10.2015 03.07.2018 2015 A-6 Yes 2004 17.04.2017 2004 A-7 No 30.06.2012 250.7.2018 2012 A-8 Yes 28.02.2013 Dated nil 2013 A-9 Yes 2015 Dated Nil 2015 A-10 No 30.06.2011 24.03.2011 2011 A-11 No 2010 2010 A-12 No 2007 2007 A-13 No 31.01.2006 13.08.2018 2006 A-14 Yes 30.04.2018 Dated Nil 2018 A-15 No 30.06.2018 28.06.2018 2018
16. 2050/2019 - No 30.09.2010 18.03.2019 2010
17. 3630/2019 - No 30.04.2009 01.04.2009 2009
18. 2077/2020 A-1 No 31.10.2014 01.12.2018 2014 A-2 No 30.06.2015 01.12.2018 2015 A-3 No 30.04.2016 01.12.2018 2016 A-4 No 29.02.2013 01.12.2018 2013
19. 45/2019 A-1 No 30.11.2018 Nil 2018 A-2 No 31.05.2010 21.12.2017 2010 A-3 No 21.12.2017 22.09.2015 2017
20. 2355/2019 A-1 No 31.07.2011 12.10.2018 2011 A-2 No 30.06.2012 10.10.2018 2012 A-3 No 31.12.2013 06.10.2018 2013 A-4 No 31.10.2014 10.12.2018 2014 A-5 No 31.10.2014 10.10.2010 2014 A-6 No 31.08.2011 15.10.2018 2011 A-7 No 30.06.2009 13.10.2018 2009 A-8 No 31.12.2008 12.10.2018 2008 A-9 No 31.10.2017 05.10.2018 2017
21. 3319/2019 No 2000 20.07.2018 2000 & 23.09.2019
22. 3354/2019 No 15.12.2018 29.7.2019 2018
23. 434/2023 A-1 Yes 30.04.2020 11.06.2018 2020 & 4.7.2022 A-2 Yes 30.11.2017 21.12.2017, 2017 18.07.2017 04.07.2022 A-3 Yes 31.08.2016 20.04.2018 2016 04.07.2022 A-4 Yes 30.09.2018 04.07.2022 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 62 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs A-5 Yes 31.03.2020 08.07.2022 2020 A-6 Yes 23.09.2015 020.7.2022 2015 A-7 Yes 31.03.2016 06.07.2022 2016 A-8 Yes 30.06.2016 16.07.2022 2016 & 25.07.2022 A-9 Yes 31.05.2011 02.08.2022 2011 A-10 Yes 28.02.2019 05.07.2022 2019 A-11 Yes 31.08.2019 05.07.2022 2019 A-12 Yes 17.06.2017 07.07.2022 2017 A-13 No 31.05.2018 20.12.2018 2018 09.05.2022 A-14 Yes 31.05.2020 20.07.2022 2020 A-15 Yes 30.04.1997 04.07.2022 1997 A-16 Yes 29.02.2012 12.07.2022 2012 A-17 Yes 31.03.2017 11.08.2022 2017 A-18 Yes 30.11.2011 20.06.2022 2011 A-19 Yes 31.12.2019 09.08.2022 2019 A-20 Yes 31.01.2008 20.06.2022 2008 A-21 Yes 31.01.2020 29.03.2019 2020 & 09.07.2022 A-22 Yes 31.07.2019 17.06.2022 2019 A-23 Yes 30.06.2014 - 2014
19. Further by placing reliance on the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranch in the case of Kabir Dasgupta vs. Union of India and others in W.P.(S) No.5777/2019 and other connected case, vide order dated 4.1.2024 by placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Shashi Kiran (supra) decided the said petitions in favour of the petitioners therein
20. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons recorded above, the present OAs are allowed with the following order(s)/direction(s):-
(i) The applicants are entitled for conversion from CPF to GPF and the respondents are directed to extend the same benefits to the applicants, as given to the applicant(s) in Gurmail Kaur (supra);
and 2025.05.28 RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30' 63 Item No. 36 (Court No. II) OA No. 2108 of 2022 with 22 (Twenty-two) OAs
(ii) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
21. Pending MA(s), if any, in above OAs shall stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
22. Registry is directed to place a copy of this Order in other connected cases as well.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (R.N.Singh)
Member(A) Member(J)
/ravi/ks/
2025.05.28
RAVI KANOJIA17:31:30+05'30'