Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
M Sakthivel vs Kvs on 17 October, 2025
1 OA No.310/00061/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00061/2024
Dated this the 17th day of October, Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
M.Sakthivel,
Assistant Section Office (Retd),
Emp Code-5118
No.17, Jaganathapuram Main Road,
Jalladianpettai, Medavakkam,
Chennai. .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s. R. Arumugam
Vs.
1. Commissioner,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Head Quarters,
18 Institutional Area,
Shahid Jeetsingh Marg, New Delhi.
2. Deputy Commissioner,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Chennai Region, IIT Campus,
Chennai .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. M. Vaidhiyanathan
2 OA No.310/00061/2024
\ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:
"a. Call for the original file(s)/record(s) of the 1st respondents authority relating to passing of the impugned memorandum bearing No. F. No. 110125/2018/KVS/PF/Conversion from CPF to GPF/101 dated 13-06-2022 {Annexure A-17} and the 2nd respondent authority's consequential orders bearing Nos. F.17/2022/CPF to GPF/KVS (CHER)5599 dated 07.07.2022 (Annexure A-20) & No.F.15(1188)Pension/2017-18/Pension/KVS (CHER)/9792 dated 28.07.2022(Anexure A-22) and quash the portion of imposing interest @ 9% p.a on th CPF management share of the applicant as illegal.
b) For a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondent authorities to refund an amount of Rs.4,35,450/-
(Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty only) together with interest @ 9% p.a from 17.09.2022 to till disbursement of the amount discriminately recovered as interest on MSCPF from the applicant while sanctioning of pension benefits.
c) Costs of this Original Application to be paid by the respondents.
d) Pass such further or and other order as may be required in facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The factual matrix of the case are as follows:
The applicant joined the services of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) as an Audit Assistant on 25.12.1985 and became a member of the KVS 3 OA No.310/00061/2024 Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme in January 1987, in accordance with the prevailing policies at that time. Subsequently, the 1st Respondent implemented the General Provident Fund (GPF) cum Pension Scheme based on the recommendations of the IV Central Pay Commission (CPC), vide Office Memorandum dated 01.09.1988. As per this OM, the CPF Scheme was discontinued for employees who joined service on or after 01.01.1986. Employees were required to exercise an option by 31.01.1989 to continue under the CPF Scheme; failing which, they would be deemed to have opted for the GPF cum Pension Scheme. The applicant, having joined in December 1985 but enrolled in the CPF Scheme in January 1987, is deemed to have come under the GPF cum Pension Scheme in accordance with the OM dated 01.09.1988. However, despite being eligible for the Pension Scheme, the applicant continued to be covered under the CPF Scheme due to an administrative error, even though he submitted multiple representations requesting correction of his service status. These representations, dating back to 03.01.1991, went unanswered by the authorities. Only after the applicant's latest representation dated 05.04.2018 did the 2nd Respondent reject his request through an order dated 24.04.2018, communicated to the applicant on 28.04.2018. The applicant filed a review application on the same day and subsequently approached the Tribunal by filing OA No. 572/2018, which 4 OA No.310/00061/2024 was disposed of by order dated 15.05.2018. In compliance with the said order, the 1st Respondent issued a rejection order dated 10.09.2018. The applicant challenged this order in OA No. 925/2018. This Tribunal, by a common order dated 02.04.2019, disposed of OA No. 925/2018 along with three other similar applications, issuing directions in favour of the applicants. The respondents challenged this order before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No. 17165/2020 (filed against Smt. R. Amutha).
The High Court, by its order dated 07.12.2020, dismissed the writ petition on merits and directed refund of the CPF amount received by the applicant under the earlier scheme. A separate writ petition (WP No. 105/2021) filed against the present applicant was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 07.01.2021, relying on its earlier order dated 07.12.2020. Due to non-compliance with this order, the applicant was constrained to file Contempt Petition No. 1093/2021. Subsequently, the respondents filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed at the admission stage. The respondents thereafter complied with the High Court's order in favour of Smt. R. Amutha, wherein no interest was charged on the management share of the CPF (MSCPF) refunded by her at the time of retirement. However, the applicant was subjected to discriminatory treatment, as 9% interest per annum was levied on the MSCPF while complying with the same order. Aggrieved, the applicant 5 OA No.310/00061/2024 filed Sub Application No. 443/2022 in the pending Contempt Petition No. 1093/2021. The Hon'ble Madras High Court, by its order dated 20.06.2023, closed the contempt proceedings while granting liberty to the petitioners to pursue recovery of the interest charged. The applicant is thus approaching this Tribunal for appropriate relief.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the action of the 1st and 2nd respondent authorities in levying 9% interest on the Management Share of the Contributory Provident Fund (MSCPF) exclusively against the applicant is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the law as laid down by the higher judiciary. Accordingly, the impugned action is liable to be set aside. He further submits that while the respondents have complied with the common order, dated 02.04.2019 passed in OA No. 422/2018 and its batch, they have unjustifiably treated the applicant differently, for reasons best known to them, amounting to clear discrimination.
4. It is also contended that the respondents rightly refrained from charging interest on the MSCPF in accordance with the subsequent detailed order dated 03.06.2020 passed by this Tribunal in respect of similarly and identically placed employees of KVS. That order was duly 6 OA No.310/00061/2024 affirmed by both the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, any differential treatment meted out to the applicant constitutes arbitrariness and discrimination, which is impermissible under well-settled legal principles.
5. Counsel further submits that the applicant had specifically requested the authorities, prior to retirement, to withhold disbursement of the MSCPF pending the decision on their pension representation. Despite this, the 2nd respondent unilaterally disbursed the amount. As such, the subsequent imposition of 9% interest is unsustainable in law. It is also pointed out that the applicant made an effort to return the MSCPF on 07.02.2021 immediately after obtaining favourable orders from the Hon'ble Madras High Court. However, the 2nd respondent declined to accept the repayment, citing untenable and flimsy grounds. Imposing interest at this belated stage has caused severe hardship and irreparable financial loss to the applicant, without any fault on their part.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the learned counsel prays that the reliefs sought in the present OA be granted to the applicant. 7 OA No.310/00061/2024
7. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondents by relying upon the reply statement vehemently opposed the submissions of the applicant. He contended that this Tribunal, by its order dated 06.02.2019 passed in OA No. 125 of 2019, had, while disposing of the said OA, rendered a decision in line with the judgment, dated 24.02.2017 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No. 19215 of 2019, which directed the applicant to refund the Management Share of CPF (MSCPF) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the above said Writ Petition which is extracted below:
13. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.736 of 2013, dated 2.6.2015 is set aside and the prayer sought for by the petitioner therein, is granted. The Official respondents are directed to convert the petitioner as pensioner under GPF Scheme forthwith, calculate and pay the revised pension including the arrears for which, he became eligible by such conversion. At the same time, the petitioner is 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. It is also made clear that arrears of pension payable to the petitioner under GPF Scheme may be adjusted towards refund of the P.F. amounts received by the petitioner with interest. In the event of not realizing the entire amount, the remaining portion amount may be refunded by the petitioner."
Therefore, he pleaded that as per the court orders only the respondents have charged the interest on the applicant.
8 OA No.310/00061/2024
8. He further contended the statement of the applicant that the action of the respondents is arbitrary and discriminatory is not true as KVS OM, dated 01.09.1988, has also provision for refund of management share along with interest if the conversion is allowed to the retired employee who had already received the CPF management share at the time of retirement. Therefore, he pleaded that the respondent KVS has not violated the orders of this Tribunal nor the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the OA.
9. Heard both the sides at length, perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record. The decisions referred to by them were also considered.
10. The question that arises for consideration in this OA is "whether it was proper on the part of the respondent to levy interest at the rate of 9% on the Management Share of CPF (MSCPF), when no such interest was charged in the case of similarly placed individuals".
11. The Applicant approached this Tribunal in OA No.572 of 2018, for conversion from CPF to GPF and this Tribunal by order, dated 15.05.2018 directed the respondents to dispose of the representations of the applicant 9 OA No.310/00061/2024 dated 28.04.2018 in accordance with law by a speaking order. Subsequently the respondents rejected the claim of the applicant by a passing speaking order dated 10.08.2018. Aggrieved by the said order rejection order, the applicant filed OA No.925 of 2018 before this Tribunal which disposed of the OA and other similar OAs viz.,1282, 422 and 683 of 2018 by order, dated 02.04.2019 in the following terms:
"6. On perusal it is that the order of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in WP No.19215/2015, dated 24.02.2017 had been complied with by the respondents by issuing an order dated 27/31.07.2018 wherein it is also states that the conversion to GPF/Pension Scheme of the Petitioner therein was subject to the outcome of SLP Diary No.10965/2018 filed by the respondents in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As the matter is before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that these OAs could be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to review their decision in the case of the applicants herein in the event of the Hon'ble Apex Court upholding the order of the Madras High Court in WP No.19215/2015, dated 24.02.2017 in the said SLP within a period of two months thereafter".
12. It is also brought to our notice when similarly placed persons like the applicant approached this Tribunal in OA No.1248/2019 & Batch, this Tribunal by order, dated 03.06.2020, passed the following order:
"22. We had heard both sides and perused the decisions produced in support of the applicant's case. It is seen that a similar matter came up before this Bench in V. Thyagarajan Vs. Union of India & Others (OA 1094/2015) and it was decided in favour of the applicant holding that when the applicant was appointed directly, only GPF Pension Scheme was available and hence he is entitled to get the benefit of 10 OA No.310/00061/2024 the said scheme. Similarly, in Johnson p John v. Dy. Commissioner, KVS & 2 Others (OA 457/11), the Ernakulam Bench had considered the same matter and allowed the OA. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in OP(CAT)597/13(z) dt. 13.8.2013 had confirmed the said order and it has become final. The applicants OA Nos.1076/19, 1139/19, 1140/19, 1249/19, 1141/19 and 1/2020 are employees who had not given any option to continue in the CPF Scheme. As per the Scheme, employees who had not given option to continue in CPF, will be deemed to have come under the GPF (Pension) Scheme from the date of introduction. They mainly rely on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in K. Subramanian v. Commissioner (reported in 2017 STPL 9496 Madras). According to them, they are also similarly placed persons as the applicant in that case and they are also entitled to get the benefit of GPF (Pension) Scheme. We find no reason to deny the benefit given in the above case to the applicants herein.
23. The applicants in these cases are similarly placed and there is no reason to deny the said benefit to the applicants herein. Hence, we dispose of these OAs with the following directions. No costs: -
"1. The respondents are directed to grant the benefits of GPF (Pension) Scheme to the applicants in the above OAs w.e.f. the date of appointment to their respective posts or from dates on deemed coming over to the GPF Scheme.
2. The applicants are directed to refund the amount received from CPF, if any, at the time of their retirement without any interest. It is also made clear that the applicants are also not entitled to get any interest on the pension accrued from KVS.
3. The respondents are directed to complete the exercise of implementing the above order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
13. It is also seen that against the orders of the Tribunal dated 02.04.2019 in OA No.1282, 422, 925 & 683/2018, the respondents KVS 11 OA No.310/00061/2024 approached the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.17165/2020 (Against OA No.422/2018 in the case of R. Amutha) and the Hon'ble High Court vide its decision, dated 07.12.2020 held as follows:
"12.In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed and the petitioners / official respondents are directed to comply with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, as confirmed in this writ petition and convert the respondent herein / Original Applicant as pensioner under the GPF scheme and pay her, the pensionary benefits within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order/uploading of the order in the website. It is made clear that whatever amount received by the 1st respondent herein / Original Applicant, under CPF scheme, the same have to be refunded as expeditiously as possible.'' Against the said judgment, the respondents filed SLP No.19772/2021 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which dismissed the same on 06.12.2021. Pursuant to the dismissal of the SLP, the authorities of KVS complied with the orders of the Tribunal in the case of R. Amutha, in the following terms:
"NOW THEREFORE, the competent Authority of KVS has decided to comply with the order dated 02.04.2019, passed by the Hon'ble CAT, Madras Bench in OA No.422/2018. Accordingly, Smt. R Amutha retd HM, KV. CLRI, Chennai would be treated as covered under GPF cum Pension scheme from the date of her retirement i.e., 31.08.2018 and the management share of CPF is to be refunded by Smt. R. Amutha retd HM, KV, CLRI, Chennai to KVS (RO), Chennai. After receipt of CPF management share & pension papers duly completed in all respect, pensionary benefits under GPF cum Pension Scheme will be sanctioned by Regional Office, Chennai as per rules. Smt. R. Amutha retd, 12 OA No.310/00061/2024 HM, KV, CLRI Chennai may submit her pension papers duly completed in all respects to KVS, Regional Office, Chennai after remittance of CPF management share to KVS, RO Chennai".
Therefore, it is clear from the records and from the above order the respondents, have not charged interest on MSCPF in the case of Smt. R. Amutha.
14. It is pertinent to note that in the applicant's case, although the order of this Tribunal in OA No.925/2018, was challenged by the respondents in WP No.105/2021, the Hon'ble High Court. by its order, dated 07.01.2021 dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Tribunal's order. The SLP filed by the respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.19813/2021,was also dismissed by order dated 06.12.2021. Thereafter, the respondents issued the impugned compliance order on 13.06.2022, which reads as follows:
"NOW THEREFORE, the competent Authority of KVS has decided to comply with the order dated 02.04.2019, passed by the Hon'ble CAT, Madras Bench in OA No.925/2018. Accordingly, Sh M. Sakthivel, retd ASO, KV, Anna Nagar, Chennai would be treated as covered under GPF cum Pension scheme from the date of his retirement i.e., 30.04.2018 and the management share of CPF along with 9% p.a. interest (from the date of receipt of amount by him to the date of remittance to KVS RO, Chennai), pensionary benefits under GPF cum Pension Scheme will be sanctioned by Regional Office, Chennai as per rules. The arrears of pension payable to Sh M. Sakthivel, retd ASO, KV, Anna Nagar, Chennai under GPF cum pension scheme will be 13 OA No.310/00061/2024 adjusted towards refund of CPF amount and interest on CPF amount. Sh M. Sakthivel, retd ASO KV, Anna Nagar, Chennai may submit his pension papers duly completed in all respects to KVS, Regional Office, Chennai after remittance of CPF Management share along with interest, as stated above to KVS, RO Chennai".
15. From the records, it is evident that the respondent has levied interest on the Management Share of CPF (MSCPF) in the case of the applicant, while no such interest was charged on the Management Share of CPF in respect of other similarly and identically placed employees of KVS. This is despite the fact that the relevant orders have been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the act of charging interest on MSCPF only in the applicant's case is wholly discriminatory and in violation of the orders passed by this Tribunal, the Hon'ble High Court, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
16. As per the records, this Tribunal issued similar directions in OA No. 422/2018 and a batch of connected cases, including OA No. 683/2018. However, the respondents have levied interest only on the applicants in OA No. 683/2018 and OA No. 925/2018. This selective implementation clearly amounts to arbitrariness, disparity, and discrimination on the part of the respondents.
14 OA No.310/00061/2024
17. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the applicant has made out a valid case. Accordingly, this Tribunal sets aside the impugned order dated 13.06.2022, issued by the respondents, insofar as it relates to charging interest at the rate of 9% on the Management Share of CPF (MSCPF). The respondent is further directed to refund the interest amount recovered from the applicant, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
18. In the result, the OA is allowed on the above terms. There shall be no order as costs.
(M. SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(J)
mas 17 .10.2025