Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sushma Sharma vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan on 16 October, 2025
1
Item Nos. 99, 106 & 114 / C-IV
O.A. Nos. 1495/2017, 4407/2018, 3700/2018 & OA 3477/2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 1495/2017
with
OA No. 4407/2018
&
O.A. No. 3700/2018
&
O.A. No. 3477/2019
Reserved on : 08.10.2025
Pronounced on : 16.10.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
O.A No. 1495/2017
1. Mrs. Sushma Sharma,
Trained Graduate Teacher (Retd.) (B)
Aged About 60 years
W/o Sh. Manoj Sharma
R/o E-67, Lane No. 27, Chanakya Place,
Opp C-1, Janakpuri, Pankha Road, New Delhi
2. Mrs. Aruna Sharma,
Primary Teacher (C)
Aged About 58 years
W/o Sh. Pawan Kumar Sharma
R/o FA-223, Ground Floor, Tagore Garden,
New Delhi 110027
3. Mrs. Madhulika Gill,
Primary Teacher (C)
Aged About 59 years
W/o Major(Retd) Ravinder Singh Gill
R/o Flat No. 14, Antriksh Apartment, H-3, Block Vikaspuri,
New Delhi-110018
4. Mrs. Swaran Chawla,
Primary Teacher (C)
Aged About 59 years
W/o Sh. Surinder Kumar Chawla
R/o Flat No. 202, Viran Apartments,
Near Inder Enclave, Paschim Vihar,
2
Item Nos. 99, 106 & 114 / C-IV
O.A. Nos. 1495/2017, 4407/2018, 3700/2018 & OA 3477/2019
New Delhi-110087
5. Mrs. Sunita Laxman Narahari,
Retd. as Primary Teacher (C)
Aged About 69 years
W/o Sh. Laxman B. Narahari,
R/o Flat 13, Marvel Memories,
Ram Nagar Colony,
Bavdhan, Pune-411021
6. Shanta Vijapurkar,
Trained Graduate Teacher (Retd.) (B)
Aged About 76 years
S/o Late Sh. Nityanand Vijapurkar,
R/o Flat No. 506, Vijay Raghav Residency,
B/H Vijaya Bank, Chanda Nagar
Hyderabad-500050
7. Sharat Kumar Jain,
Trained Graduate Teacher (Retd.) (B)
Aged About 60 years
S/o Sh. Shantilal Patwa,
R/o B-19, Bapunagar Vistar, Sanjit Road,
Mandsaur (M.P.) - 458001
8. Ansar I. Saeed,
Trained Graduate Teacher (Retd.) (B)
Aged About 61 years
S/o Sh. Ahmed Saeed
R/o B-69, GTB Nagar,
Kareli (Opp Amber Palace),
Allahabad-211016 (UP)
9. Mrs. Ajita Nag, Primary Teacher (C)
Aged About 58 years
W/o Sh. Ranajit Kumar Nag,
R/o 179/1, Kanakulia Road, Kolkotta (WB)
10. Mrs. Bithika Kar,
Retd. as Primary Teacher (C)
Aged About 61 years
W/o Dr. Swapan Kumar Kar,
R/o 22, Rajanikanta Das Road,
Flat-09, P.O. Haltu, Kolkotta (WB)
11. Mrs. Rajendra Kaur,
Retd. as Primary Teacher (C)
3
Item Nos. 99, 106 & 114 / C-IV
O.A. Nos. 1495/2017, 4407/2018, 3700/2018 & OA 3477/2019
Aged About 60 years
W/o Sh. Gurendra Singh Pahwa, R/o Plot No. 470, Gali No.
4, Raja Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302004
12. Tapan Kumar Das, Vice Principal (B)
Aged About 59 years
S/o Lakshmi Kanta Das,
R/o CA 17/1, Rail Pukur Road, Baguiati,
Kolkotta-700059 (WB)
13. Mrs. Bithika Biswas,
Trained Graduate Teacher (B)
Aged About 59 years
W/o Sh. Nitish Biswas,
R/o DL-224/D, Salt Lake, Kolkatta - 700091
14. Mrs. Geeta Tiwari,
Retd. as Head Mistress (B)
Aged About 67 years
W/o Sh. K.C. Tiwari,
R/o 152, Sanjivani Nagar,
Near Wonder World School, Garha, Jabalpur (MP)-482003
15. Mrs. Nalini Ramakrishna,
Head Mistress (B)
Aged About 54 years
W/o Sh. B. Ramakrishna,
R/o 301, Rekha Apartments, West Park Road,
12th Cross Malleswaram
(Opp Chamundi Scout Camp),
Bangalore
16. Bilquis Sultana, Primary Teacher (C)
Aged About 59 Years,
W/o Sh. Mirza Samsur Raheman Baig,
R/o 6C/947, CDA Sec-9, Bidansi,
Cuttack-753014 (Odisha)
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. M K Bhardwaj)
Versus
Union of India through
1. Ministry of HRD through,
4
Item Nos. 99, 106 & 114 / C-IV
O.A. Nos. 1495/2017, 4407/2018, 3700/2018 & OA 3477/2019
The Chairman KVS,
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi
2. Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sanghthan through,
The Commissioner KVS,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi.
3. Ministry of Finance through, The Secretary,
Deptt. of Expenditure,
New Delhi.
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. S Rajappa, Mr. U N Singh, Ms. Sandhya
Chaturvedi)
O.A No. 4407/2018
1. RAJ KUMAR CHOPRA
Retired Drawing Teacher, Group B
Aged about 72 Years
S/o Late Sh. K. K. Chopra
A-22, gaur Green Avenue, Abhay Khand - II Indira Puram,
Ghaziabad (UP) 2010101.
2. ABHILASHA JAIN
Retired Head Mistress, Group B
Aged about 69 Years
W/o Mr. R. C. JAIN,
E-1/2, RISHI NAGAR, UJJAIN, M. P.
3. AJAY KUMAR SINHA
Retired Principal, Group A
Aged about 65 Years.
S/o Late Sh. US Sinha
R/o: D-14, Purshopttam Vihar, Bhind Road, Goleka Mandir,
Gwalior, M. P.
4. ANJALI CHATTERJEE
Retired PRT, Group C
Aged about 68 Years
W/o SH. A R Chatterjee
R/o: D-42, Suncity,
Sector-54, Gurgaon-122011
5. Baldev Raj Tandon Retired PGT, Group B
5
Item Nos. 99, 106 & 114 / C-IV
O.A. Nos. 1495/2017, 4407/2018, 3700/2018 & OA 3477/2019
Aged about 73 Years S/o Shri Amar Nath Tandon R/o: C-2-
8, Jeevan Jyoti Apartments, Near Rohit Kunj, Pitampura
New Delhi 110034
6. Banishree Das Retired TGT, Group B
Aged about 67 Years W/o Sh. Susant Das R/o: Flat No. 11-B,
Shivshakti CGHS Ltd., Sector 10, Plot 10, Dwarka, New
Delhi 110075.
7. Bansi Lal Menaria Retired Principal, Group A
Aged about 72 Years S/o Moti Lal Menaria 273, Hiran
Magari, Sector-8, Near Dholwali Magari, Udaipur-313002.
8. Bhushan Grover
Retired Assistant, Group B
Aged about 69 Years S/o Late Shri H. C. Grover R/o: Flat
No. 663, Bahawal Pur, CGHS Ltd., Sector 1, Plot 4, Dwarka,
New Delhi 110078.
9. Bindu Sinha
Retired TGT, Group B
Aged about 68 Years
W/o Late B. S. Sinha P-604, Anupam Apartment, East Arjun
Nagar, Near Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi 110032
10. Braham Deo Lal Das Retired TGT, Group B
Aged about 66 Years S/o Hari Nandan Lal Das, Munger
Road, Behand Church Jamalpur, District Munger, (Bihar)
11. Chhanda Dutta Chowdhury
Retired TGT, Group B Aged about 70 Years W/o Bhaskar
Dutta Chowdhury 48, Model Town, Balia, Garia, Kolkata-
700084
12. Deep Kumar Mamgain
Retired TGT, Group B
Aged about 67 Years S/o Late Sh. Jagannath Mamgain 36/1
Lane 7, Post Office Road Society Area, Clement Town,
Dehradun 248002
13. Deepali Chatterjee
Retired Headmistress, Group B
Aged about 78 Years W/o Late Nitya Nanda Chatterjee, 122
A, Banamali Naskar Road, Behala, Kolkata-700060
14. Geeta Bhattacharya Retired Headmistress, Group B
6
Item Nos. 99, 106 & 114 / C-IV
O.A. Nos. 1495/2017, 4407/2018, 3700/2018 & OA 3477/2019
Aged about 80 Years W/o Late Surendra Nath Bhattacharya
D-3, Purbachal Cluster 1, Sector 111 Salt Lake City, Kolkata -
700097
15. Harish Chandra Agarwal Retired EO, Group A
Aged about 72 Years S/o Late Shri Dharam Dutt Agarwal
559, Rosewood Apartments, Sector 13 A,, Dwarka, New
Delhi 110078.
16. Heather D'Souza
Retired Headmistress, Group B
Aged about 76 Years D/o Late Victor D'Souza Ahrihant
Colony, Penta Mala, Kothi Road, Ahmednagar.
17.Indra Diwan
Retired TGT, Group B Aged about 78 Years W/o Mr. Sushil
Kumar B-26, Sector-40, Noida-2010301 (UP),
18. Jayprakash Bhimashankar Joshi Retired LDC, Group C
Aged about 69 Years S/o Late Sh. Bhimashankar M. Joshi
D-22, Soni Pole No. 4, Wadi, Vadodara-390017 (Gujrat)
19. Juthika Chowdhury, (Retired PRT, Group C)
(Now Deceased: Following legal heirs)
A. Pranab Kumar Chowdhury (Husband)
B. Payoja Choudhury (Daughter)
Both: R/o: J/M-2/2, Ram Krishna Cottage, P. O. Aswini
Nagar, P.S. Baguiati, Distruct, North 24, Parganas, Kolkata-
700159
20. K. Girija
Retired TGT, Group B Aged about 73 Years W/o G. Raghu
Plot no. 37, Road no. 3, Green Hills Colony, Saroor Nagar,
Hyderabad, 500035, (T.S.)
21. Kawaljit Kaur Anand
Retired TGT, Group B Aged about 71 Years W/o Mr. Trilok
Singh Anand Flat No. 210, Sector 12, Pkt. 2. (Dwarkadheesh
Apartments), Dwarka, New Delhi-110078.
22. Kiran Bala Maini
Retired PGT, Group 'B'
Aged about 69 Years
W/o Mr. Rattan Kumar Maini
464/3, Mehrauli, New Delhi.
23. Kiran Gupta
7
Item Nos. 99, 106 & 114 / C-IV
O.A. Nos. 1495/2017, 4407/2018, 3700/2018 & OA 3477/2019
Retired PGT, Group B
Aged about 75 Years
W/o NC Gupta
GH 14, Flat No. 933, Paschim Vihar
New Delhi-110087
24. Kishanbhai Govindlal Rana
Retired UDC, Group C
Aged about 76 Years
S/o Govind lal L. Rana.
F-404, Emperean Court Yard,
Opp. Akshar Paradise Nr. Deeps Party Plot, B/H
Narayanvadi Hotel, Post Atladara-390012.
25. Krishna Vijayversiya
Retired PRT, Group C
Aged about 68 Years
W/o Cdr. D. K. Gupta (Retd.)
B-2/101A, Safderjung Enclave, New Delhi 110029
26. Lipika Dey
Retired PGT, Group B
Aged about 76 Years
W/o Mr. Swapan Kumar Dey
Lichubagan, Maniktala, Ichapur 24 PGS (N) W. B.
27. M. Surya Kumari
Retired Head Mistress, Group B
Aged about 63 Years
W/o Budaya Shankar
Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh
28. Madhu Dhamejani
Retired PRT, Group CX
Aged about 68 Years
W/o Dr. Chetan Lal Dhamejani Flat No. J-1103, Roystonea,
Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, Pune-411013 (Maharashtra)
29. Malti M. Maharishi
Retired PGT, Group B Aged about 71 Years W/o Mahendra
Nath Maharishi B 604, Doordarshan Apt, Plot no. 9, Sector
45, Gurugram, Haryana.
30. Maya Nandi
Retired TGT, Group B Aged about 72 Years W/o Mr. Prabir
Nandi P-231, CIT Scheme VII M, Sanmilita Housing Society,
Kolkata 700054.
8
Item Nos. 99, 106 & 114 / C-IV
O.A. Nos. 1495/2017, 4407/2018, 3700/2018 & OA 3477/2019
31. Meeta Pratap Singh
Retired Yoga Teacher, Group B Aged about 68 Years W/o
Late Raghvendra Pratap Singh 83, South Park Apartments,
Near B-Block, Gurudwara, Kalkaji, New Delhi 110019.
32. Mina Roychowdhury
Retired PRT, Group C Aged about 66 Years W/o Mr.
Swapan Kumar Roychowdhury Swabhumi Residency, Flat -
L/1, P-12, Motijheel Avenue, Kolkata-700074,
33. Mira Basu
Retired PRT, Group C Aged about 70 Years W/o Nikhil
Kumar Basu Aswinipally School Road, PO-Barasat, Distt.-24
Paraganas (North) Kolkata-700124.
34. Nirendra Nath Sarkar Retired TGT, Group B Aged about
77 Years S/o Nipendra Nath Sarkar AC Chaterjee Bye Lane,
Harerpukurdhar, Dist. Hoogly.
35. Paramjeet Ahuja
Retired Principal, Group A Aged about 73 Years W/o Gurdit
Singh S-392, Greater Kailash Part-1, New Delhi-110048.
36. Prabha Gupta Retired PRT, Group C Aged about 69
Years W/o Mr. Deepak Kumar 98, Khurbura, Dehradun,
U.K.
37. Puran Singh Khatri
Retired PET, Group B Aged about 72 Years S/o Shri Surat
Singh 87/A, Road No. 2, Mahipalpur Extn. New Delhi-
110037.
38. Raghubir Prasad Mathur
Retired Librarian, Group B Aged about 74 Years S/o Late
Sh. J.N.P.Mathur Flat No. 1014, U.F. Apts. P. No. 9, Sector
6, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.
39. Ram Buksh
Retired Lab Assistant, Group D Aged about 68 Years S/o
Late Ram Niwaz VPO, Manadech, Thana-Amanganj, Disttt.
Faizabad (U.P.)
40. Raman Bala Kapoor Retired TGT, Group B Aged about
78 Years D/o Late Sh. Madan Lal Kapoor 432, Mathura
Road, Jangpura, New Delhi 110014.
41. Rani Mehra
9
Item Nos. 99, 106 & 114 / C-IV
O.A. Nos. 1495/2017, 4407/2018, 3700/2018 & OA 3477/2019
Retired TGT, Group B Aged about 65 Years W/o Mr. Ashok
Kumar G-20, Sector-12, Noida (U.P.)
42. Reba Ghosh Retired PRT, Group C Aged about 71 Years
W/o Late Tushar Kant Ghosh "Matri-Ashish" 1, Rabindra
Path, Birati. Kolkata-51, 24 Paraganas (North). Kolkata-
700051
43. Roopshikha Agrawal
Retired PRT, Group C Aged about 67 Years W/o Mr.
Haridas Agrawal Flat No. 201, 22, Ravi Nagar, Neatric
Terrace Gwalior. (M.P.)
44. Ruchi Gulati
Retd. Head Mistress, Group B Aged about 61 Years W/o Mr.
RK Gulati 42-E, Nehru Park Colony, Bareilly, U. P.
45. Sabita Mukherjee
Retired Librarian, Group B Aged about 75 Years W/o Mr. M.
S. Mukherjee Village South Kamragu, Jhorahat Howrah.
46. Santosh Rawat
Retired TGT, Group B
Aged about 66 Years
S/o Mr. V. S. Rawat
H. No. 5, Dwarika Puri, Extn., P.O. Kanwali, GMS Road,
Dehradun, (U.K.)
47. Sarbani Das
Retired TGT, Group B
Aged about 72 Years
W/o Late Sushoran Das Loknath Abashan,
120/5 Purbachal Kalitala Road, Kolkata 700078.
48. Satyabrata Pal
Retired Head Mistress, Group B
Aged about 71 Years S/o Late Rohini Kumar Pal SJDA
Composite Complex, MIG-83, P.O.-Danguajhar Dist.-
Jalpaiguri, W.B. 735121.
49. Sephali Maiti
Retired PRT, Group C
Aged about 78 Years W/o Mr. Jaladhar Maiti B-4, Sourav
Abasan, FB-5/2, Sec-III, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700097,
W.B.
10
Item Nos. 99, 106 & 114 / C-IV
O.A. Nos. 1495/2017, 4407/2018, 3700/2018 & OA 3477/2019
50. Shashi Bala Saxena
Retired Head Mistress, Group B
Aged about 69 Years S/o Mr. G.P.Saxena H.No. 7, H-9, G-II,
Phase-One M.D.D.A. Colony, Indirapuram, G.M.S. Road,
Dehradun, (U.K.)
51. Shukla Khosla
Retired TGT, Group B
Aged about 77 Years
W/o Satya Deo Khosla H. No·. 1062, Sector-21, Gurgaon -
122016, Haryana. 52. Sikha Devi Retired PRT, Group C Aged
about 72 Years W/o Apurba Sarkar· 1/17, Baghajatin,
Kolkata-92, W.B.
52. Sikha Devi, Retired PRT, Group C, Aged about 68 years,
W/o Apurba Sarkar, I/17, Baghajatin, Kolkata - 92, W.B.
53. Samriti Arya Retired Librarian, Group J3 Aged about 72
Years W/o Mr. 0. P. Arya. JO G-4, Pocket -2, DbA SFS Flats,
Naraina Vihar New Delhi - 110028.
54. Subodh Ranjan Maji Retired TGT, Group B Aged about
72 Years S/o Late Gour Mohan-Maji 4, Tinpukur Badra,
Jaya Appts., Flat-A, First Floor, Kolkata - 700079.
55. Sudha Gupta Retired Head Mistress, Group B Aged
about 67 Years W/o Dr. S. K. Gupta . 6/304, Malviya Nagar,
Jaipur-3020117.
56. Sukanti Kumari Das Retired PRT, Group C Aged about
64 Years W/o Niranjan Dash Debjyoti Apartment, R.· C.
Path, Kantadhar, P.O. Chapur Nawabganj, Dist.- 24, PGS
(N), Pin- 743144.
57. Surekha Jain Retired PGT, Group A
Aged about 71 Years
W/o Ramesh Chand Jain · 4 7, E-1, Sector - 11, Faridabad-
121006 (Haryana)
58. Sushim Kumar Das Retired. TGT, Group B .
Aged about 67 Years S/o R&bindra Nath Das 17/1, Jogenra
Garden, Haltu; Kasha, Kolkata- 700078.
59. Varsha Nem Jain Retired PGT, Group B
Aged about 72 Years . Retired PGT, Group B
Aged about 72 Years
11
Item Nos. 99, 106 & 114 / C-IV
O.A. Nos. 1495/2017, 4407/2018, 3700/2018 & OA 3477/2019
W/o Mr. Nern Kumar Jain Cl/501, Uniworld Gardens-2
Sector-47, Gurgaon-122018.
60. · Vijai Pal Singh Raghav, Retired Prindpal, Group A
Aged about 67 Years . S/o Late Sh. H. Singh H. No. 22,
Jagriti Vihar, -Sector-23, Ghaziabad, (U.P.)
61. Vimla Nanda, Retired TGT, Group B
Aged about 75 Years W/o Sh. T. R. Nanda 2-J-12,
Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur-302Q04.
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Through its Commissioner,
18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi-110016.
2. Union of India
The Its Secretary
Department of School Education & Literacy,
3. Ministry of Education, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra
Prasad Road, Central Secretariat, New Delhi- 110 001. 3.
Union of India Through its Secretary, Department of
Expenditure, Ministry .of Finance New Delhi- 110 016.
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. S Rajappa, Mr. U N Singh, Ms. Sandhya
Chaturvedi)
O.A No. 3700/2018
1. Smt. Avinash Kaur, aged 64 years, 'B' Group
w/o Sh. B.c. Bharawaj,
Retired Librarian from KVS
r/o 170. C.P. Colony, Mall Road,
Morar, Gwalior (MP)
2. Smt. Kiran Somal, aged 63 years, 'B'
12
Item Nos. 99, 106 & 114 / C-IV
O.A. Nos. 1495/2017, 4407/2018, 3700/2018 & OA 3477/2019
w/o sh. K.M.S.Somal,
Retired PGT (Bio) from KVS
r/o 55-A, West Arjun Nagar, Agra (UP).
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resources Development,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi
2. Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sanghthan,
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 Delh-110016
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. U.N. Singh, Ms. Sandhya
Chaturvedi)
O.A No. 3477/2019
Ms. Reeta Pande, Aged-63 Years, 'B'
D/o Sh. P.K.Nandi,
Retired PGT (Biology) from KVS,
R/o 6 DAV College Road, Dehradun,
(Uttarakhand)
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary,
13
Item Nos. 99, 106 & 114 / C-IV
O.A. Nos. 1495/2017, 4407/2018, 3700/2018 & OA 3477/2019
Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India
Sastri Bhawan, New Delhi
2. Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sanghthan,
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 Delh-110016
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. U.N. Singh, Ms. Sandhya
Chaturvedi)
14
Item Nos. 99, 106 & 114 / C-IV
O.A. Nos. 1495/2017, 4407/2018, 3700/2018 & OA 3477/2019
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
Since a common question of facts and law arises in the present O.A.s, they are being disposed of through this common order. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from O.A. No. 1495/2017 with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. In the present O.A., filed under Section - 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:
"(a) Call for the original file(s)/record(s) of the respondents dealing with the case of the applicants and peruse the same;
(b) To quash and set aside the orders dated 22.09.2015, 05.10.2015 & 17.08.2016 and direct the respondents to allow the applicants to be governed by GPF-cum-
Pension Scheme from due date and fix their pensionary benefits and release the same with all arrears of pension.
(c) To declare the action of respondents in not treating the applicants under the deemed category for the purpose of GPF-cum-Pension Scheme as illegal and arbitrary and direct the respondents to treat the applicants under GPF-cum-Pension Scheme from due date and grant Pension as per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 with all arrears of pension and interest.
(d) To declare the action of respondents in governing the applicants' pensionary benefits under CPF Scheme on the basis of invalid option, as illegal and direct the respondents to allow the applicants to opt / continue under GPF-cum-Pension Scheme for all purposes and release all consequential benefits.
(e) Award cost of this application and proceedings against the Respondents and in favour of the Applicants. 15 Item Nos. 99, 106 & 114 / C-IV O.A. Nos. 1495/2017, 4407/2018, 3700/2018 & OA 3477/2019
(f) May also pass further order(s) as be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice."
3. Narrating the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the core issue raised in the present Original Application is the illegal denial of the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme benefits to the applicants, who have been wrongly continued under the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme, despite clear government policy that CPF ceased to operate from 01.01.1986.
3.1. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the applicants were in continuous service well before the cutoff date and were thus eligible to be governed under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. However, due to administrative apathy and lack of proper communication, they were neither properly informed nor given a meaningful opportunity to exercise an informed option. Consequently, they remained under CPF by default. Adding to the arguments, learned counsel submitted that the applicants have consistently represented for being governed under the GPF- cum- pension scheme and have also expressed their willingness to refund the CPF contributions received, along with interest. 3.2. Furthermore, learned counsel submitted that the applicants have been subjected to hostile discrimination inasmuch as other similarly situated persons--namely, Johnson P. John, Usha Rani 16 Item Nos. 99, 106 & 114 / C-IV O.A. Nos. 1495/2017, 4407/2018, 3700/2018 & OA 3477/2019 Singh, and S.K. Verma--have already been granted the benefit of the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme, despite being originally covered under the CPF Scheme. In the case of Johnson P. John, the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 457/2011, vide order dated 22.03.2012, held that since the CPF Scheme had ceased to operate and the employee was in service as on 01.01.1986, he was entitled to be treated under the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme, notwithstanding the absence of any formal option exercised by him. This decision was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in OP(CAT) No. 597/2013, decided on 13.08.2013, thereby confirming the entitlement of similarly placed employees to switch over to the Pension Scheme. Despite these binding judicial precedents and the fact that the respondents have themselves implemented the aforesaid orders in the case of Usha Rani Singh and S.K. Verma, who were identically placed, the present applicants have been denied the same benefit. Instead, the respondents have insisted that each employee approach the court individually for relief, thereby compelling avoidable litigation. This selective and inconsistent implementation of judicial decisions amounts to arbitrariness and is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inder Pal Yadav vs. Union of India (1985 (2) SLR 248) and K.C. Sharma vs. Union of India (1997 (3) RSJ 606), wherein it has been categorically held that the Government, being a model employer, 17 Item Nos. 99, 106 & 114 / C-IV O.A. Nos. 1495/2017, 4407/2018, 3700/2018 & OA 3477/2019 ought to extend the benefit of judgments to similarly situated persons without forcing them to approach the court repeatedly. The conduct of the respondents, in ignoring the principles of equality and uniformity in application of settled legal position, is not only unjustified but also defeats the very purpose of judicial discipline.
3.3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants challenge this arbitrary denial on several legal and factual grounds. Firstly, it constitutes discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as the respondents have treated the applicants differently from other similarly placed employees. Secondly, the continuation under CPF is illegal as the scheme had been rendered inoperative post-1986 by virtue of Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare OM No. 4/1/87- PIC-I dated 01.05.1987, which mandated that all employees in service as on 01.01.1986 were to be governed under the GPF-cum- Pension Scheme. Thirdly, there is hostile discrimination in rejecting the applicants' claim despite the existence of identical facts and circumstances in the cases of others who were granted relief.
3.4. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted the respondents' actions amount to violation of legitimate expectation and natural justice, especially in light of the applicants' consistent 18 Item Nos. 99, 106 & 114 / C-IV O.A. Nos. 1495/2017, 4407/2018, 3700/2018 & OA 3477/2019 efforts requesting reconsideration. It is also contended that the respondents have relied upon invalid or irrelevant options, which had lost legal sanctity once the CPF Scheme ceased to exist. 3.5. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the respondents' actions violate equity, justice and good conscience, particularly as the applicants are prepared to refund the CPF amounts received post-retirement, along with applicable interest. Such a refund mechanism has been judicially recognized in Satpal Yadav v. Union of India & Ors., 2013 (2) SLR 654 (P&H), where the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana upheld the legality of refunding CPF dues with interest to avail GPF-cum-Pension Scheme benefits. Moreover, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the impugned actions of the respondents are the result of arbitrary and colourable exercise of power, amounting to a denial of the applicants' vested rights under the Pension Scheme. There has been a clear disregard of binding guidelines, including DoPT's OM dated 01.05.1987, which unambiguously declared CPF inoperative from 01.01.1986 and directed that all existing employees would be governed by the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme. Finally, it has been argued that in light of the recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 3172/2019, titled 'Bharti Bahuguna vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors.' on 02.09.2025, the 19 Item Nos. 99, 106 & 114 / C-IV O.A. Nos. 1495/2017, 4407/2018, 3700/2018 & OA 3477/2019 applicants therein have been categorized into three sets and have been accorded the benefit of conversion. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants seek quashing of the impugned orders and a direction to the respondents to treat them as governed by the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme, grant all consequential pensionary benefits with arrears, and release the same forthwith, as has already been done in the case of their counterparts.
4. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), submitted that the KVS being an autonomous statutory body, is not automatically covered by the Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare Office Memorandum (OM) No. 4/1/87-PIC dated 01.05.1987, which specifically applies only to civilian central government employees governed under the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Rules, 1962. The said OM and related government orders were intended for central government employees and do not bind autonomous organizations like KVS unless explicitly adopted. 4.1. Further, the learned counsel submitted that KVS, in its 51st meeting of the Board of Governors (BOG) held on 31st May 1988, voluntarily decided to implement, mutatis mutandis, the Government of India's decision on the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission regarding the changeover from CPF to 20 Item Nos. 99, 106 & 114 / C-IV O.A. Nos. 1495/2017, 4407/2018, 3700/2018 & OA 3477/2019 the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension Scheme (GPF-cum- Pension Scheme) for its employees. Pursuant to this decision, KVS issued its own Office Memorandum dated 01.09.1988, which clearly stipulated that employees joining service on or after 01.01.1986 shall be governed by the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme and shall have no option to remain under the CPF Scheme. For employees who were already in service prior to this cutoff date, including the applicants, an option was explicitly offered to continue under the CPF Scheme, which they exercised knowingly and with full awareness that the option so chosen would be final and irrevocable.
4.2. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the Government of India, through subsequent policy clarifications and notifications, including the Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare OM dated 25.04.2012, has emphasized that no further opportunity or option for conversion from the CPF to the pension scheme should be granted. This stance is based on several important considerations: the pension scheme is a lifelong financial commitment entailing substantial recurring liabilities, while CPF is a one-time benefit; the administration of pension funds requires complex and careful management through trusts; and providing repeated options risks unsustainable fiscal burdens on the government. The 5th Pay Commission also recommended 21 Item Nos. 99, 106 & 114 / C-IV O.A. Nos. 1495/2017, 4407/2018, 3700/2018 & OA 3477/2019 that since multiple options have already been granted in the past, no further options are warranted.
4.3. Adding further to the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), in consultation with the Department of Expenditure, examined the proposal for granting one-time permission for KVS employees to switch from CPF to the GPF- cum-Pension Scheme. The Department of Expenditure, vide letter dated 07.04.2015, specifically rejected the proposal on the ground that the employees in service as on 01.01.1986 had consciously opted for CPF and the option exercised was final. Additionally, allowing one more option for KVS employees would set a precedent compelling similar relief for a substantial number of CPF beneficiaries across various departments, leading to considerable financial and administrative repercussions. This position was communicated to KVS, which, despite some financial autonomy, depends on the Government of India for pension fund disbursement and thus cannot override central government policy unilaterally.
4.4. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicants' claims are untenable as the applicants had already exercised a conscious and final option to remain under the CPF Scheme. There is no scope for 22 Item Nos. 99, 106 & 114 / C-IV O.A. Nos. 1495/2017, 4407/2018, 3700/2018 & OA 3477/2019 reopening the matter or granting relief that conflicts with binding Government orders, fiscal prudence, and established administrative policies. The OA is, therefore, devoid of merit, and should be dismissed accordingly.
5. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the respondents failed to explain the implications of the options offered to the applicants, who were not properly informed when the CPF scheme became redundant from 01.01.1986 due to the introduction of the mandatory GPF Pension Scheme for all appointees thereafter. The applicants' right to pension is a fundamental right recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, equated to property, and any denial thereof violates their entitlement, especially when identically placed employees have been granted such benefits. Further, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the respondents have merely reproduced correspondence without addressing the applicants' substantive contentions or justifications. The claim that applicants made a conscious choice to continue under CPF is baseless, as the option period prescribed by the Government of India expired on 30.09.1987, rendering any subsequent option invalid. No valid distinction exists between employees appointed before or after 1986, and differential treatment is unjustified and hyper- 23 Item Nos. 99, 106 & 114 / C-IV O.A. Nos. 1495/2017, 4407/2018, 3700/2018 & OA 3477/2019 technical. Further, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that financial implications cannot justify denying pension benefits when similarly placed employees have already been granted the GPF Pension Scheme.
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record. Learned counsel for the respective parties agreed that the facts and legal issues involved in the connected Original Applications are materially similar, and therefore, the present common order shall govern the outcome of all such cases.
7. ANALYSIS :
7.1. Having carefully considered the pleadings, rival contentions, and documents placed on record, this Tribunal finds that the issue raised in the present Original Applications is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1913/2019 (Babu Sangram Tondare v. KVS & Ors.), decided on 03.07.2025, wherein the Tribunal, after a detailed consideration of identical facts and legal issues, allowed the claims of similarly situated employees of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan seeking coverage under the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme instead of the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme.24
Item Nos. 99, 106 & 114 / C-IV O.A. Nos. 1495/2017, 4407/2018, 3700/2018 & OA 3477/2019 7.2. In the said decision, this Tribunal, after referring to the consistent judicial pronouncements of various Coordinate Benches and the Hon'ble High Courts--including Johnsen P. John (OA No. 457/2011, CAT Ernakulam Bench), Usha Rani Singh (OA No. 1039/2014, CAT Principal Bench), Santosh Kumar Verma (OA No. 1027/2014), and Namrata Semwal (W.P. (C) No. 5238/2024, Delhi High Court)--held that employees of the KVS who were appointed on or after 01.01.1986 are to be deemed governed under the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme, and continuation under CPF was void ab initio once the CPF Scheme stood discontinued by the Government of India.
7.3. This Tribunal also took note of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the SLP (C) Diary No. 48443/2024 arising out of the Namrata Semwal judgment, dismissed the same vide order dated 14.11.2024, thereby affirming the view that employees appointed after 01.01.1986 could not be denied pensionary benefits under the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme. 7.4. In the present cases, the applicants stand identically placed as those in O.A. No. 1913/2019. The pleadings clearly show that the applicants were in service well before or after the cut-off date of 01.01.1986, and their continuance under the CPF Scheme was a consequence of administrative error rather than any conscious or informed option exercised by them. The respondents have not 25 Item Nos. 99, 106 & 114 / C-IV O.A. Nos. 1495/2017, 4407/2018, 3700/2018 & OA 3477/2019 produced any valid or contemporaneous record to establish that the applicants had exercised a legally sustainable option to remain under the CPF Scheme after its discontinuation. 7.5. The Tribunal further observes that the respondents have themselves implemented the orders passed in several similar cases, such as Usha Rani Singh, S.K. Verma, B.C. Tyagi, and others, granting identical relief to employees who were erroneously continued under CPF. Denial of the same benefit to the present applicants, therefore, amounts to unequal treatment of similarly situated employees and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
7.6. It is now well settled that once a competent judicial forum has adjudicated upon a recurring issue involving identical facts, the same principle must be applied uniformly to avoid multiplicity of litigation and maintain administrative consistency. The respondents, being a model employer, are duty-bound to extend the benefit of the settled legal position to all identically placed employees, without compelling each to seek separate adjudication.
8. CONCLUSION :
8.1. In view of the foregoing discussion, and for the reasons recorded above, the present Original Applications are allowed, following the ratio laid down by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 26 Item Nos. 99, 106 & 114 / C-IV O.A. Nos. 1495/2017, 4407/2018, 3700/2018 & OA 3477/2019 1913/2019 (Babu Sangram Tondare v. KVS & Ors.), decided on 03.07.2025. Accordingly, the following directions are issued:
(i) The applicants are entitled to conversion from the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) to the General Provident Fund-cum-
Pension Scheme (GPF-cum-Pension Scheme), and the respondents are directed to extend to them the same benefits as have been granted to the applicants in the case of Mrs. Gurmail Kaur & Ors., as affirmed in O.A. No. 1913/2019, as well decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court in Bharti Bahuguna (supra).
8.2 The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
8.3 Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /as/