Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The private respondents had averred that no such option form was filed by them. The petitioners, especially P2 to P4, would also confirm before us that the records do not contain any option forms having been submitted by the private respondents. The Tribunal had hence proceeded on the basis that no option has been exercised by the private respondents and there is no reason for this Court to deviate from that factual position. The admitted facts is thus that none of the private respondents, before us, exercised the option to continue in the CPF Scheme and they are hence deemed to have automatically transitioned to the GPF Scheme.

16. Per contra, Mr.Arumugam, learned counsel, appearing for private respondents would submit that petitioners have completely mis-appreciated the tenor of the Scheme. There is no question of the petitioners seeking a transition to GPF Scheme as the Scheme itself provided for an automatic transition of all employees from the subsisting CPF Scheme to the GPF Scheme. The reference to option is only in the event an employee desired to continue with CPF Scheme itself and in the present case none of the private respondents have exercised such an option. He would bring to our notice the order of this Court in the case of Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and 9 (2007) 6 SCC 13 10 W.P.(C) No. 7712 & 9851 of 2020 dt 12.03.2021 (Delhi HC) 11 O.A.No.802 of 2020 dt. 19.07.2023 (CAT, Allahabad) 12 O.A.No.973 of 2018 dt. 08.08.2019 (CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.20091 of 2024 etc. batch two others v R.Amutha & Anr [W.P.No.17165 of 2020 dated 7.12.2020] which has been rejected by the Supreme Court 06.12.2021 in S.L.P.(C) No. 019772 of 2021.

28. Petitioners have relied on the fact that they have continued to treat the private respondents as coming under the CPF Scheme till their retirement and the private respondents have received the benefit under the CPF Scheme as well.

29. In one case, i.e., the case of R.Geetha (petitioner in W.P.No.19109 of 2022), Mr.Vaithyanathan, would submit that the writ petitioner had even sought a loan as against CPF benefits which were granted to her. Thus, they have argued that having availed the benefits https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.20091 of 2024 etc. batch of the CPF Scheme and continued for the length of their employment under that Scheme, they cannot seek the benefits of the GPF Scheme.

31. In the case of Jaspal Kaur (supra) that has been relied upon, the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan had challenged an order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Scheme in question is the same. The facts stated at page 3 are that a letter had been received from Jaspal Kaurstating that she had been continuing under the CPF Scheme and it should be changed to GPF Scheme. Her request was rejected and an order was passed stating that she was not entitled to claim the benefit of GPF pension scheme as she had opted for CPF Scheme. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.20091 of 2024 etc. batch