Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Smt A Vijaya Laxmi Naidu vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 16 February, 2026
O.A. 618 OF 2021 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH OA No. 618 OF 2021 Reserved on :12.02.2026 Pronounced on :16.02.2026 Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Member (J) Hon'ble Mr. Pramod Kumar Das, Member (A)
1. Smt. A Vijaya Laxmi Naidu, aged about 61 years, wife of Sri J. Raghunath Rao, permanent resident of Bank Colony, 1st Lane near Radio Station, Luchapada Road, Berhampur, Dist Ganjam 760001 and retired as PRT, from KV Berhampur.
......Applicant VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through the Prinicipal Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of HRD, North Block, New Delhi 110001.
2. The Joint Commissioner (Finance), Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18-Institute Area, Saheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi 110016.
3. The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangatha, Qr. No. 18, Institute Area, Saheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi - 110016.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalya Sangathan, Bhubaneswar Region, Pragati Vihar, Mancheswar Railway Colony, Bhubaneswar 751017.
5. The Finance Officer, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Bhubaneswar Region, Pragati Vihar, Mancheswar Railway Colony, Bhubaneswar - 751017.
......Respondents Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:17.02.2026 10:01 O.A. 618 OF 2021 2 For the applicant : Mr. S K Ojha, counsel For the respondents: Ms. H K Tripathy, counsel O R D E R Hon'ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, J.M. The applicant aggrieved by order dated 18.08.2021 wherein her prayer for extending the benefit of GPF cum Pension Scheme has been rejected has filed this OA praying for following reliefs:
a) To admit the OA & issue notices to the respondents;
b) To quash the order/letter dtd. 18.08.2021 (Annex. A/1) holding the same is outcome of non-application of mind and also opposing the policy of the Govt. of India which was validly adopted by the Sangathan;
c) To declare that the applicant is deemed to have been included in GPF-Cum-Pension Scheme and entitled to get all the retiral benefit accordingly;
d) To direct the respondents to release the benefits as due and admissible to her in accordance with GPF-Cum-
Pension Scheme forthwith after adjustment of dues paid to the applicant;
e) To direct the respondents to extend all consequential benefits as due and admissible;
f) To pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper.
2. The brief facts of the case as inter alia averred by the applicant in the OA is that as per the settled decision of Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:17.02.2026 10:01 O.A. 618 OF 2021 3 Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Sh. V D Pandey and R. Renukadevi that persons those who are/were in service by 1st January 1986 and did not opt for continuance in the CPF scheme should be deemed to have come over to the pension scheme and no formal application needs to be submitted. It is submitted that Hon'ble Courts have held that unless the benefit is extended to the persons concerned, it would certainly amount to discrimination as many have been benefitted and extended the benefit as per and on the basis of DOPT OM dated 06.06.1985 as well as Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pensions OM dated 01.05.1987.
3. It is submitted that by the cut off date the applicant was in service for which her switch over to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme is automatic and at the belated stage she cannot be denied benefit which she is entitled to on the guise that no option was submitted at that point of time. It is submitted that applicant had joined in respondent department on 30.08.1984.
It is submitted that vide OM dated 01.09.1198 KVS accepted the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme introduced by the Govt. of India Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:17.02.2026 10:01 O.A. 618 OF 2021 4 and as per the said scheme employees joining service in the Sangathan on or after 01.01.1986 were to be governed only by the GPF scheme and had no option to opt for the CPF Scheme.
It is submitted that all CPF beneficiaries who were in service as on 01.01.1986 and who were still in service were deemed to be governed by GPF cum Pension Scheme if he/she has not submitted any specific application for continuation with the CPF scheme. It is submitted that applicant was set to retire on 30.04.2019 on attaining the age of superannuation and during processing of the papers she came to know that she has not been absolved into the GPF cum Pension Scheme and is continuing under the CPF scheme. It is submitted that the applicant was of the view that under the deeming clause she has been brought into the GPF cum Pension Scheme automatically. It is submitted that when the file was processed she came to know about the mistake and submitted her representation dated 24.10.2018 and when no action was taken she submitted another representation dated 07.01.2019 reiterating her prayer. It is submitted that her representations were forwarded to Respondent No. 2 by Respondent No. 4 but Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:17.02.2026 10:01 O.A. 618 OF 2021 5 still remained unattended. It is submitted that she submitted another representation dated 30.04.2019 and then approached this Tribunal in OA no. 183/2020 which was disposed of with direction to respondents to dispose of the representation. It is submitted vide order dated 18.02.2021 rejecting her prayer.
Hence the OA.
3. The respondents have filed counter inter alia averring that the OA is barred by limitation, delay and laches since applicant is praying for conversion from CPF to GPF after a long period of 33 years and two years after her retirement. It is submitted that applicant joined KVS on 30.08.194 and opted CPF scheme and allotted A/c No. CEC 3997 and thereafter she had been allotted revised CPF A/c No. 2619 vide OM dated 01.09.1998 and she continued in CPF scheme by contributing her CPF subscription till her retirement. It is submitted that she had known all along that she was under CPF scheme and did not raise the matter. It is submitted that matter regarding grant of one time permission for change over from CPF to GPF cum Pension Scheme was considered by MHRD in consultation with the Department of Expenditure who vide their letter dated Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:17.02.2026 10:01 O.A. 618 OF 2021 6 07.04.2015 informed that those employees who decided to opt for CPG made a conscious decision knowing well the option exercised is final and grant of one more option will have repercussion. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records.
5. Ld. Counsel for the applicant relying on decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Bharati Bahaguna vs KVS & Ors in WP (C) No. 3172/2019 submitted that it has been settled that point of limitation will not apply. Further relying on decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of R Renukadevi vs Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others WP (C) No. 26354 of 2015 submitted that applicants case is covered by the said decision.
6. Ld. Counsel for the respondents relied on decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vrs Smt. Jaspal Kaur in Civil Appeal No. 2876/2007 and decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vrs Manju Sahgel in WP (C) No. 7712/2020 and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vrs Ramesh Chandra Agarwal in WP (C) No. 9851/2020 wherein the case Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:17.02.2026 10:01 O.A. 618 OF 2021 7 was dismissed taking into view the decision of judgment of Jaspal Kaur (supra). It is further submitted that coordinate benches of this Tribunal had also dismissed the same taking into consideration the decision of Jaspal Kaur (supra). It is also stated that this Tribunal had also dismissed some OA of similarly placed applicants.
7. This Tribunal in OA No. 185/2021 (Sandhyarani Mohanty vrs KVS & ors), OA No. 249/2021 (Smt. Kalyani Joshi vrs Commissioner KVS & ors) and OA No. 294/2020 (Baijayanti Mohanty vrs KVS & Ors) had dismissed the OA. In OA No. 294/2020 this Tribunal vide order dated 21.10.2024 had held as follows:
6. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the records. We have also gone through the decisions relied on by the parties concerned.
7. We ind that in the case of KVS and others vs. Jaspal Kaur in CA No. 2876 of 2007 it has held that on account of inability of KVS to produce original option, secondary evidence was considered and it was found suf icient to show that the employee had preferred to remain in CCF. The belated request for coming to GPF Scheme was rightly rejected by the KVS.
8. The CAT, PB, New Delhi vide order dated 07.09.2019 in OA No. 1069/2018 by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of KVS vs. Jaspal Kaur (supra) and on secondary Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:17.02.2026 10:01 O.A. 618 OF 2021 8 evidence in the form of monthly pay bill, Form-16 for Income Tax, and annual of statement CPF account found it suf icient to prove that the applicants in that case have opted to remain in the CPF Scheme.
9. Similarly, in the case of Bijay Kumar Jha vs. K.V.S in OA No. 2605 of 2021 disposed of on 18.08.2021 again by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jaspal Kaur (supra) rejected the claim made by applicant after three decade for coming from CPF to GPF. Similarly, in OA no. 1816 of 2020 the claim of the applicants to migrate to the GPF-cum-pension scheme has not been accepted due to inordinate delay in submitting the claim.
10. The Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 800/2020 vide order dated 28.08.2023 dismissed the prayer of the applicant therein for migration to GPF from CPF with observation as under:
"37. As far as case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties is different views have been taken by the various courts. However, in the case of K.V.S. Vs. Jaspal Kaur and others (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that option once exercised for CPF would be inal. In fact, this has been done by the Hon'ble Apex Court even in cases where original document relating to option could not be produced. The similar condition has also been given in para 3.6 of the Of ice Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension dated 1st May, 1987 and in para 3.6 of O.M. dated 1.9.1988 issued by the KVS. In view of the clear ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court holding that option once exercised for CPF is inal, we ind that the matter has already been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Accordingly, we do not ind any merit in the O.A and O.A deserves to be dismissed."
Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:17.02.2026 10:01 O.A. 618 OF 2021 9
11. Similar relief sought by applicant in the case of Smt Nilima Rakhit and Anr Vs. Union of India & Ors (OA No. 4244 of 2018) was dismissed with the observation as under:
"11. At the outset, I do record the observation that the applicants have chosen to claim the bene it of GPF and the associated Pension Scheme after a lapse of number of years since their retirement on attaining the age of superannuation. The OA was iled in the year 2018, whereas the applicant nos. 1 and 2 had retired on 31.12.2002 and 31.10.2007 respectively. Upon such retirement, they had also obtained all their terminal bene its and since then nothing is said to be due to them 9 O.A. No. 4244/2018 in terms of any of their post retiral entitlements. The omission on their part to agitate this issue after such a long period is surely serving as an impediment in a positive consideration of their claim. The applicants were not ordinary employees, holding a junior level position but are highly educated and worked as Teachers, one of them having retired as a Principal. All these years, they had made a contribution to the CPF. The decision of the Board of Governors being quoted repeatedly by them and their counsel is dated 31.05.1988. If this decision was not implemented qua the applicants, why they chose to remain silent all these years, is not explained. Ignorance or lack of knowledge of such a decision is not established and would also be too far-fetched to accept.
12. I am not in agreement with the argument putforth by the learned counsel for the applicants that the cause of action in the present Original Application is a continuing one or one involving recurring loss. The applicants have obtained all the bene its and entitlements which they were eligible for and what Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:17.02.2026 10:01 O.A. 618 OF 2021 10 they seek now is another claim and bene it which after a lapse of number of years, they may be inding more bene icial. Even though the learned counsel for the applicants has pointed out that there is no document on record Court No.6 (item No.44) to show 10 O.A. No. 4244/2018 that the applicants had opted for the CPF Scheme, the facts and circumstances as also the background establish that they were aware that all these years they were being covered under the CPF Scheme and continued to remain in such coverage not only till their retirement but even for a number of years after their retirement. There is no cause for them now to agitate denial of bene it of GPF-cum-Pension Scheme after having enjoyed the bene its of CPF for a large number of years and thereafter taken all their retiral bene its."
12. After taking into consideration the aforesaid position of facts and law, the CAT, PB, New Delhi vide order dated 13.07.2023 in OA No.615 of 2020 titled Smt. Sarasvani Doraiswamy vs UOI and Ors also dismissed similar OA with the observation as under:
"9. In the instant case, the issues raised are signi icantly different from those issues raised in the judgments and orders of various Courts and the Tribunal Benches of CAT cited by the learned counsel for the applicant. From the pleadings and arguments Court No.6 (item No.44) by both the counsels we can delineate the following issues:
(i) Whether the judgments and CAT orders cited by the counsel for the applicants are judgments in Rem or in person?
(ii) Whether the claim of applicants to migrate from CCF Scheme to GPF-cum-Pension Scheme suffers from delays and latches?
Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:17.02.2026 10:01 O.A. 618 OF 2021 11
(iii) Whether the applicants are barred by the principle of estoppel to raise the issue of migration from CCF to GPF-cum-Pension Scheme?
10. In the present case, the applicants knew from the start of the operation of the OM No. 152-1/79- 81/KVS/Budget/Part-ii DT. 1.9.1988 that they were in the CCF Scheme. All sets of secondary evidence, monthly salary bill containing deduction from CCF, Annual Statements of every year regarding consolidated balance in CCF and Form-16 for iling income-Tax point to the fact that they were in CCF Scheme. The applicants in their own volition, enjoyed the accrued bene it of CCF Scheme - may be higher interest rate and others. They woke up, most of them long after retirement that they wanted to migrate to GPF-Cum-Pension Scheme. They did not make any representation to migrate to GPF-cum-Pension at an Court No.6 (item No.44) earlier stage requesting to allow them migration to the pension scheme by giving relaxation. After inding the inability of KVS Authorities to furnish the copy of their option forms through RTI, they woke up to the possibility of migrating from CCF to GPF Pension Scheme. What prevented them to do so even after the irst month of receipt of their salary bills or after receipt of Annual CCF account just after the OM dt. 1.9.1988 came into operation? The applicants are bound to explain each day's delay in agitating for their claim since 1.9.1988. The applicants have failed to explain such inordinate delay. This is not exactly a case of pension per se. Hence, the ratio of judgment in Tarsem Singh (supra) is not applicable in the instant case. Here, there is no anomaly or irregularity in the computation of pension or pensionary bene its. Here, the issue is whether the bene it of migration to pension scheme could have been granted to the applicants w.e.f. 1.9.1988. Hence, the present case is distinguishable from the Tarsem Singh (supra) case. And for that reason, the present OA suffers from delay and latches.
Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:17.02.2026 10:01 O.A. 618 OF 2021 12
11. The applicant's are also debarred from raising the issue of migration to the pension scheme from CCF Court No.6 (item No.44) Scheme on account of their behavior and conduct which attract the principle of estoppel. The applicants have enjoyed the bene it of CCF Scheme since 1.9.1988. Most of them (except applicant No. 9 & 10) have enjoyed the bene it of recruitment bene its after they superannuated from service. Such bene its included the payment on account of CCF. They have not agitated since 1.9.1988 their contribution towards CCF every month till their retirement. They have not agitated or protested against the payments with regard to CCF. Similarly, applicant No. 9 & 10, had not agitated their contribution to CCF since 1.9.1988. It is not known whether they have protested the payment of CCF amount during the pendency of the present OA, on account of their superannuation.
12. Estoppel means the principle which prevents a person from asserting that is contrary to what is implied by a previous action. A person who has induced another person to alter his position to his advantage cannot turn around and take advantage of such alteration. Principle of estoppel, in the instant case, is squarely applicable. The applicants by the action or inaction have accepted the CCF Scheme w.e.f. Court No.6 (item No.44) 1.9.1988 and hence, they are barred to take a contrary position after 28 years.
13. This leaves the irst issue whether the judgements and orders cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, particularly, the Shashi Karan (supra), the Jodhpur and Jharkhand High Court are judgments in rem, and hence applicable to all the employees who had not given explicit option in 1988 to migrate to GPF- cum-Pension Scheme and they have liberty to knock at the door of the courts any time in future. In extremity, this arguments can be extended to the legal heirs of the Govt. employee to raise the issue at any time in future.
Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:17.02.2026 10:01 O.A. 618 OF 2021 13 It is our considered view that these judgments and orders are not judgments in rem , establishing vested right and principles applicable to all cases and for all time to come when any claimant agitates for the same.
14. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the set of secondary evidence conclusively points out that the applicant voluntarily remained in CCF Scheme in respect of the operation of KVS OM dated 1.9.1988. The ratio of judgment in Jaspal Kaur (supra)'s case and the OA No 2605/2018 of CAT(PB) Court No.6 (item No.44) and OA No.1816 of 2020 is squarely applicable in the present case. Hence, the OA is without merit and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs."
13. We have gone though the decision of the CAT, madras Bench in the case of Usha Rajagopalan Vs. KVS upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court but we ind that the said case has no application in the case in hand because in that case the applicants therein iled the OA in 2019 and 2020 praying for conversion to GPF/Pension Scheme consequent to their retirement in 2018, 2019 and ensuring retirement in 2020 whereas in the present case the applicant iled OA more than seven years after her retirement and, thus, the respondents objected the prayer both on limitation and merit.
14. In the case in hand, admittedly, the OM of the KVS for submission of option came into effect vide OM dated 01.09.1988 and, at that time, applicant was continuing as TGT (English) in KVS at KV, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam, A.P. but for the reasons best known the authority of the KV, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam has not been made as one of the respondents in this OA. Be that as it may, she continued to discharge the duty as an employee of KVS, after issuance of the OM dated 01.09.l988, for a period of 24 years, i.e. till her retirement on 31.10.2012. Her counterpart employees availed the bene it of the OM Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:17.02.2026 10:01 O.A. 618 OF 2021 14 dated 01.09.1988 cannot be disputed and the contention of the applicant was not aware about the same and therefore she did not avail the bene it is unbelievable. It is also an admitted fact that she did not take any step over a period of more than seven years from the date of her retirement. She was allotted a new CPF A/c number is not in dispute and she did not also question at the relevant time when new CPF number was allotted to her. It is the speci ic case of the respondents that at this distant point of time of 30 years, her option form is not traceable. Fact remains that she had never made any representation raising protest or objection for counting her under CPF scheme. Her contributions were regularly being deducted from her salary for years together and she was also aware of contribution made by her and on behalf of the authority and the annual amount sheet which the respondents used to supply regularly, while GPF statements were being issued to her counterpart employees, who had opted to switch over to GPF/Pension Scheme, and on the basis of statements applicant had submitted her income tax return for a long period. Similarly, the plea of the applicant that if no option is received by the cutoff date, the employees should be deemed to have come over the Pension Scheme is also not tenable in the eyes of law because she did not raise any such objection at the relevant point of time when she was not brought under the GPF Scheme while her counterpart employee were brought over under the Scheme on exercise of their option. This shows that this is an afterthought plea taken by the applicant taking the advantage of non-availability of her option after a period of more than 32 years. Law is well settled that one cannot take the advantage of his/her own wrong/jus ex injuria non oritur as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lily Thomas v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1650. Further, law is also well settled that one cannot get the bene it in an indirect manner if he/she is not entitled to get the same directly as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Supertech Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:17.02.2026 10:01 O.A. 618 OF 2021 15 Ltd. Vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Ors, (2024) 1 SCC (L&S) 819. Had the applicant produced any such evidence that though she had opted to switch over to GPF/Pension Scheme, the same was not considered, the matter would have been different. The time passers coupled with the fact of allotment of new CPF A/c number, deduction of amount from her salary towards CPF contribution, yearly statement, Pay slips etc. clearly establishes that the applicant remained in the CPF Scheme as per her wish and merely because the original documents relating to exercise to option was not produced that should not be a ground to ignore the ample materials cannot be a ground interfere in the matter at this belated stage.
15. In view of the discussions made above and taking into consideration of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Jaspal Kaur (supra), we have no hesitation to hold that this OA sans any merit and is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
8. The order of this Tribunal was challenged before Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in WP (C) No. 7336 of 2025 and Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 08.05.2025 dismissed the same with following observations:
In the present case, the Petitioner has failed to offer any convincing explanation or suf icient cause for the inordinate delay in asserting her rights. Her inaction for several years renders the plea barred both on grounds of limitation and equity being suffered by laches. Moreover, the legal maxim "Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt"- the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights, aptly applies in the instant case. The Petitioner's indolence and delay in asserting her claim disentitle her Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:17.02.2026 10:01 O.A. 618 OF 2021 16 from invoking the jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashment of learned Tribunal's well-reasoned order.
Conclusion: 12. In view of the discussions above, this Court inds no in irmity in the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, in O.A. No. 260/00294 of 2020. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
9. It is also an admitted fact that applicant was allotted a new CPF A/c number and she did not also question at the relevant time when new CPF number was allotted to her. It is the specific case of the respondents that at this distant point of time of 30 years, her option form is not traceable. Fact remains that she had never made any representation raising protest or objection for counting her under CPF scheme. Her contributions were regularly being deducted from her salary for years together and she was also aware of contribution made by her and on behalf of the authority and the annual amount sheet which the respondents used to supply regularly, while GPF statements were being issued to her counterpart employees, who had opted to switch over to GPF/Pension Scheme, and on the basis of statements applicant had submitted her income tax return for a long period. Similarly, the plea of the applicant that if no option is received by the Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:17.02.2026 10:01 O.A. 618 OF 2021 17 cutoff date, the employees should be deemed to have come over the Pension Scheme is also not tenable in the eyes of law because she did not raise any such objection at the relevant point of time when she was not brought under the GPF Scheme while her counterpart employee were brought over under the Scheme on exercise of their option. This shows that this is an afterthought plea taken by the applicant taking the advantage of non-availability of her option after a period of more than 32 years. Law is well settled that one cannot take the advantage of his/her own wrong/jus ex injuria non oritur as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lily Thomas v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1650. Further, law is also well settled that one cannot get the benefit in an indirect manner if he/she is not entitled to get the same directly as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Supertech Ltd. Vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Ors, (2024) 1 SCC (L&S) 819. Had the applicant produced any such evidence that though she had opted to switch over to GPF/Pension Scheme, the same was not considered, the matter would have been different. The time passers coupled with the fact of Signed By:C SADISH KUMAR Signing Date:17.02.2026 10:01 O.A. 618 OF 2021 18 allotment of new CPF A/c number, deduction of amount from her salary towards CPF contribution, yearly statement, Pay slips etc. clearly establishes that the applicant remained in the CPF Scheme as per her wish and merely because the original documents relating to exercise to option was not produced that should not be a ground to ignore the ample materials cannot be a ground interfere in the matter at this belated stage
10. In view of the above, the OA stands dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.
(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS) (SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
(csk)
Signed By:C SADISH
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.02.2026
10:01