Madras High Court
The Commissioner vs Mrs.Keziah Gershome on 14 February, 2025
Author: M.S. Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
W.P.No.5097 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR
W.P.No.5097 of 2025
and W.M.P.No.5663 of 2025
1.The Commissioner,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
SaheedJeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi – 110 016.
2.The Deputy Commissioner,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Regional Office – Chennai,
I.I.T. Campus, Chennai – 600 036. ... Petitioner
Vs.
Mrs.Keziah Gershome,
TCT (Eng) Emp Code: 17340,
16, Bharathidasan Street,
Rajbai Nagar, Avadi, Chennai – 600 071. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the
Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench culminating in the
Page 1 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
W.P.No.5097 of 2025
impugned order dated 03.02.2023 in O.A.No.107 of 2021 and quash the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Vaidhiyanathan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Arumugam (Caveator)
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.)
The issue involved in the present Writ Petition with regard to the
entitlement of the pensioners, to receive the general GPF, as per the
recommendation of the IV Central Pay Commission, is no more res-
integra and is reported to be a subject matter of several Writ Petitions
being disposed of by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court. In one batch
of case in 'Union of India Vs. Mrs.C.V.L.Annapurna' dated 29.10.2024
passed in W.P.No.20091 of 2024 etc. batch, the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court had dealt with the similar issue in the following manner:-
“In disposing these five writ petitions by way of
a common order as the issue arising for
consideration is the same though dealt with by the
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/Tribunal) by
way of different orders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
2. The issue that arises for consideration in
common relates to the grant of pension benefits. The
Secretary, Ministry of Education (P1) and various
authorities of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
collectively referred to as (P2 – P4) are the
petitioners and the teachers appointed in the
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Schools are the
private respondents before us.
3. The private respondents had rendered
services as Teachers in the Kendriya Vidyalaya
Schools. The dates of joining and their dates of
retirement are as set out below:-
WP No. Date of Joining Date of Retirement
20091/24 01.11.1985 30.11.2021
22287/24 01.09.1983 31.07.2020
19109/22 09.08.1983 31.07.2021
20854/24 14.08.1985 31.05.2020
11436/24 03.09.1981 31.05.2017
4. P1 had introduced the General Pension
Fund (GPF) (Pension Scheme) as a measure of
implementation of recommendations of the IV Central
Pay Commission vide its memorandum dated
01.09.1988. The Scheme provided an automatic
transition from the Contributory Pension Fund (CPF
Scheme). In the event, the employee desired to
continue in the CPF Scheme he/she was to exercise
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
such option by 31.01.1989.
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.
6. While so, P2 to P4 continue to treat the
private respondents as coming under the erstwhile
CPF Scheme alone and it is the say of the private
respondents both before the Tribunal and before us
that they had made representations on various dates
seeking consequential effect be given to the transition
to GPF Scheme. The dates of their representation as
furnished by the petitioners are as follows:-
WP No. Date of Date of Dates of Date of
Joining Retirement Representation filing OA
20091/24 01.11.1985 30.11.2021 23-07-1994 28.10.2022
10-03-1997
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
22-07-1999
07-06-2006
12-03-2009
12-04-2014
15-03-2017
19-02-2020
08-08-2022
{Page 49 of
Petitioner’s paper
book}
22287/24 01.09.1983 31.07.2020 09-07-1992 30.10.2022
10-07-1995
20-07-1998
15-02-2001
21-01-2004
24-01-2008
24-11-2010
15-10-2013
15-09-2015
18-04-2018
11-07-2020
11-07-2022
{Page 50 of
Petitioner’s paper
book}
19109/22 09.08.1983 31.07.2021 23-07-1994 25.07.2021
16-04-1998
18-08-2000
12-01-2004
24-08-2007
12-08-2010
19-09-2014
09-03-2020
{Page 73 of
Petitioner’s paper
book}
20854/24 14.08.1985 31.05.2020 18-09-2017 04.08.2021
06-01-2018
22-03-2021
{Page 39,41 & 46 of
Petitioner’s paper
book}
11436/24 03.09.1981 31.05.2017 27-06-1991 09.09.2021
10-11-1997
21-07-2000
04-10-2010
05-09-2016
10-08-2019
07-04-2021
{Page 47 of
Petitioner’s paper
book}
7. Admittedly, there has been no reply from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
the respondents in the case of three petitioners and
replies have been sent on 25.07.2021 and 04.08.2021
in the case of petitioners in W.P.Nos.19109 of 2022 &
20854 of 2024.
8. In the aforesaid communications dated
30.09.2021 and 12.07.2021, the request of the private
respondents for shifting to the GPF Scheme has been
rejected. The contents of the communication that were
impugned before the Tribunal was proceeded on the
basis that those employees had decided to opt for
CPF and hence granting them permission for shifting
from CPF to GPF could not be considered.
9. Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned counsel, in
W.P.No.20091 and 22287 of 2024;
Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel, in W.P.Nos.
11436, 20854 of 2024 & 19109 of 2022 and
Mr.R.Arumugam, learned counsel, for the private
respondents, in all cases, are before us.
10. The first argument advanced by the
petitioners turns on the fact that the applications filed
by the private respondents before the CAT was
belated and hit by laches. The dates of filing of
original application are as follows:-
WP No. Date of filing OA
20091/24 28-10-2022
22287/24 30-10-2022
19109/22 25-07-2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
20854/24 04-08-2021
11436/24 09-09-2021
11. Thus all the applications were filed in
late 2021 and in 2022 and in four out of five cases,
after the superannuation of the employees. It is only
in the case of petitioner in W.P.No.19109 of 2022 that
the application was filed on 25.07.2021 whereas she
had superannuated on 31.07.2021, a few days prior
to superannuation.
12. Our attention is drawn to sub-clause (1)
of Section 21 of the Tribunal Act that sets out
limitation of 30 days for filing of an application
before the Tribunal, reads thus:-
21. Limitation.—(1) A Tribunal shall not
admit an application,— (a) in a case where
a final order such as is mentioned in
clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20
has been made in connection with the
grievance unless the application is made,
within one year from the date on which
such final order has been made; (b) in a
case where an appeal or representation
such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-
section (2) of section 20 has been made
and a period of six months had expired
thereafter without such final order having
been made, within one year from the date
of expiry of the said period of six months.
13. The application in these matters has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
filed long past the cause of action having arisen and
are hence hit by laches / barred by limitation.
Reliance in this regard is placed on the following
judgments (i) Premalatha.J v Union of India, Rep by
its Secretary, Ministry of Education and others1, (ii)
D.C.S. Negi v Union & Others2, (iii) State of Madhya
Pradesh and another v Bhilal Bhai and another3, (iv)
Bichitrananda Behera v State of Orissa & Ors4, (v)
State of Uttar Pradesh and others v Arvind Kumar
Srivastava and others5, (vi) S.S.Balu and another v
State of Kerala and others6 and (vii) Union of India &
Others v A.Durairaj(Dead) By Lrs7.
14. On the merits of the matter, learned
counsel for petitioners would rely on the judgment in
Rajasthan State Transport Corporation v Madu Giri
and Ors8, wherein a claim of conversion of pension
scheme made after superannuation had come to be
rejected. They would also submit that the CAT in
some cases had rejected the similar / identical claims
by employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sagathan
1 O.A.No.1064 of 2022 dt. 20.04.2023 (CAT, Chennai)
2 (2018) 16 SCC 721
3 AIR 1964 SC 1006
4 (2023) LiveLaw (SC) 883
5 (2015) 1 SCC 347
6 (2009) 2 SCC 479
7 (2010) 14 SCC 380
8 (2013) 11 SCC 603
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
Schools on the ground that merely because an
original option form was not available on the record,
the claim was not liable to be accepted. In some
cases, the claim of the employees had been rejected
on the ground that had they received the entire dues
as per CPF Scheme on their retirement and could not
now turn around and claim the benefit of the GPF
Scheme.
15. Reference in this regard is made to the
judgments in (i) KVS and others v Jaspal Kaur and
others1 , (ii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v Ramesh
Chandra Agarwal2, (iii) Yarlagadda Jyoti and others
v Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of
Human Resources and Development, Department of
Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi and others3,
(iv)Ram Prit Thakur v Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangath
and others4.
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
1 (2007) 6 SCC 13
2 W.P.(C) No. 7712 & 9851 of 2020 dt 12.03.2021 (Delhi HC)
3 O.A.No.802 of 2020 dt. 19.07.2023 (CAT, Allahabad)
4 O.A.No.973 of 2018 dt. 08.08.2019 (CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
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
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.
17. A similar order was passed by a Division
Bench of this Court on 11.01.2021 in W.P.Nos.423 &
429 of 2021 in the case of Commissioner, Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan v V.Janaki and another. He
relies on the order passed by the Division Bench in
the case of N.Subramanian v the Commissioner,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others [2017 4
MLJ 36] to similar effect as against which S.L.P(C)
No. 10695 of 2018 filed has been dismissed on
18.02.2019.
18. Mr.Arumugam, would distinguish the
judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaspal
Kaur, which has been relied upon by the petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
pointing out that adverse conclusion in that case was
on the facts of that case.
19. Per contra, petitioners would distinguish
the decision in N.Subramanian (supra) stating that,
that decision contains a factual error at paragraph
10. The Bench distinguishes the judgment in the case
of Jaspal Kaur stating ‘however, in that case, it was
factually demonstrated that the employee therein had
opted to CPF scheme and therefore, the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court was rendered in that
context’.
20. Mr.Vaidyanathan, would point out that,
that was never the case and the facts in Jaspal Kaur
case were very similar to the facts in the present case
as well. Hence the distinction as sought to be noted
by Justice Parthiban (as he then was) in the case of
N.Subramanian did not really arise at all.
21. We have heard learned counsel in
extenso and have carefully perused the materials
referred as well as the case laws cited.
22. There is no dispute with respect to the
material facts in relation to the content and import of
O.M bearing F.No.152-1/79-80KVS/Budget/Part.II
dated 01.09.1988 issued by the Ministry of Education,
Union of India from which the relevant portions are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
extracted below:-
“F.No.152-1/79-80/KVS/Budget/Part.II
Dated 1-9-88
MOST IMPORTANT
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject : Changeover of the Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan employees from the
Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to
Pension Scheme
***
In the 51st Meeting of the Board of
Governors of the Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan held on 31st May, 1988, it was
approved that Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan will implement mutatis-
mutandis the decision taken by the
Government of India on the
recommendations of the Fourth Central
Pay Commission for its employees for the
change over from the Contributory
Provident Fund Scheme to Pension
Scheme in the manner as indicated in
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances
and Pensions (Deptt. Of Pension and
Pensioners’ Welfare) O.M.No.4/1/87-PIC
dated 1.5.87.
2. It has, accordingly, been decided that
persons joining service in the Sangathan
on or after 1-1-1986 shall be governed
only by the G.P.F.Scheme and will have no
option for the C.P.F.Scheme. However, for
all CPF beneficiaries, who were in service
on 1-1-1986, the decision taken shall be
implemented in the manner herein after
indicated.
3. All C.P.F. beneficiaries, who were in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
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.
3.2 The employees of the category
mentioned above will, however, have an
option to continue under the CPF Scheme,
if they so desire. The option will have to
be exercised and conveyed to the
concerned Head of Office/Principal by
31.1.1989, in duplicate, in the form
enclosed (one form may be sent to this
office while the other kept with personal
records of the employee concerned) if the
employees wish to continue under the CPF
Scheme. If no option is received by the
Head of Office/Principal by the above
date and in this office through them by 28-
2-1989, the employees will be deemed to
have come over to the Pension Scheme.
The Head of Office/Principal are to
forward in one lot options exercised by
employees for retention of CPF Scheme
received by them, to reach Sangathan’s
Office latest by 28-2-1989. Where no
option to continue under the CPF Scheme
is received by them from any, a nil report
be sent by due date viz., 28-2-1989.
….
3.6 The option once exercised shall be
final.
......”
23. Clause 3 of the Scheme is categoric to
the effect that all C.P.F. beneficiaries in service on
01.01.1986 which is the case of the private
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
respondents and who are still in service on the date of
issue of the O.M., being dated 01.09.1988 will be
‘deemed to have come over to the pension scheme’.
24. Clause 3.2 states that the employees of
the category mentioned above i.e., those who were in
service on 01.01.1986 and continued in service as on
01.09.1988 would be given an option to continue, that
option would have to be exercised and conveyed by
31.01.1989 in the specific form.
25. Clause 3.2 goes on to state that ‘if no
option is received by the Head of Office / Principals
by 31.01.1989 and in the office of the Joint
Commissioner (Admin) of the Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan by 28.02.1989, the employees will be
deemed to have come over to the pension scheme’.
Thus, the attempt of the petitioners now to insist on
the continuance of the private respondents in the CPF
Scheme is clearly contrary to their own O.M. dated
01.09.1988. Clause 3.6 states that ‘The option once
exercised shall be final.’
26. Thus, there is substantial merit in the
contention of the private respondents that the
transition from CPF to GPF is automatic. The
question of exercise of option is immaterial in the
case of one who does not wish to continue in the CPF
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
Scheme.
27. In the present case, the petitioners have
confirmed unambiguously that the private
respondents have not exercised option to be retained
in the CPF Scheme. With this, in our considered view,
the mandate under Clause 3 of O.M. dated
01.09.1988 would have to be given effect as an
automatic measure by the petitioners.
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 of the CPF
Scheme and continued for the length of their
employment under that Scheme, they cannot seek the
benefits of the GPF Scheme.
30. We reject this argument outright as being
contrary to the express terms of O.M. dated
01.09.1988. The continuance of the employees under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
the erstwhile CPF Scheme is only at the behest of the
petitioners. Undoubtedly, it is the petitioners, who
maintain the service records, including the records
relating to pension benefits. The credit of CPF
benefits is done by the writ petitioners and it is not
their case that such credit has been at the instance of
the private respondents. In fact, the private
respondents have no manner of control over either
the records or the benefits having been extended to
them under the erstwhile CPF Scheme. The very fact
that they have been making representations would
indicate the inclination of the writ petitioners that the
tenets of OM dated 01.09.19888 be given effect to.
Needless to say, the transition from CPF to GPF
ought to have been given effect to by the writ
petitioners even if such representations had not been
made.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
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.
32. Before the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Jaspal Kaur contended that she had not
opted for the scheme but the Tribunal allowed the
application on the ground that no direct evidence had
been produced by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
to establish that position. The secondary evidence
produced by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathanto
show that she had been continuing in the scheme and
that she had been allotted a fresh CPF account
number.
33. The High Court confirmed the order of
the Tribunal. The Supreme Court notes that there was
a change of CPF Number in the case of Jaspal
Kauron 06.03.1989, post issuance of O.Mdated
01.09.1988. Jaspal Kaur, had acquiesced to the
change of GPF number and had corresponded with
the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan acquiescing to the
continuance under the CPF Scheme. In all her
correspondences, she had stated the revised number.
It is under these circumstances, and in light of the
fact that her own correspondences dated 15.03.1997
where she had stated that she was contributing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
towards CPF and her account number was JK4889
which was a revised number. This document
addressed to the Accounts Officer was held to be a
critical document by the Supreme Court, which
established that Jaspal Kaurwas aware of the change
in the account number and hence was deemed to be
an exercise of option for continuance in the scheme.
34. In the present case, no such material has
been brought on record by the writ petitioners to
indicate that they had expressly exercised an option
to continue in the CPF Scheme. Undoubtedly, the
private respondents were treated as continuing in the
CPF Scheme. The records would indicate the
continuance of the CPF number. The annual
statement of the CPF subscription which are part of
the service records maintained by the petitioners
would also indicate so.
35. However, as we have noted such records
fall within the domain of control of the petitioners
and cannot under any circumstances be taken to be
express consent or exercise of option by the private
respondents. The private respondents have brought
on record several instances where orders of the CAT
as well the High Court have in identical
circumstances held in favour of the employees and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan has complied with
those orders. There is no reason for the petitioners to
have adopted a divergent stand in the present
matters.
36. The mere fact that K.Geetha (in
W.P.No.19101 of 2022) had applied for and obtained
a loan as against CPF benefits would also have no
bearing in the matter as the act of the employee is
merely to seek a loan as against the pension benefits.
Whether the pension benefits have been computed
under the CPF or the GPF Scheme would fall only
within the control of the petitioners and the private
respondents have no say in the matter. In any event
and certainly, it cannot mean that she has exercised
an option for retention in the CPF Scheme. The
exercise of option for retention would have to be a
conscious, voluntary and express act. The records of
the petitioners have not conclusively established that
no option in the requisite form has been made by the
employees. The secondary evidence also fall within
the ambit of service records maintained by the writ
petitioners and no clinching secondary evidence had
been produced in this case to persuade us to come to
the conclusion that the private respondents have
applied their mind and exercised an option for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
retention in CPF Scheme.
37. The prayer of the private respondents
before the CAT is as follows:-
Writ Petition Number Prayer before Tribunal
20091/2024 “a. Call for the original
files(s)/record(s) relating
the case of the applicant
and issue a direction to
the 2nd respondent
authority to consider the
case of the applicant for
grant of GPF pension
scheme benefits in terms
of the well settled
position of law by way of
order dated 05.05.2022
passed by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in SLP (C)
No.19952/2021 and
judgment dated
105.2022 in SLP(C)
Dy.No.13901/2017 and
consequently receive the
management share of
CPF paid to the applicant
without any interest and
pay arrears of pension to
the applicant.
b. costs of this OA to be
paid by the respondents.
c.pass such further or
other orders as may be
required in facts and
circumstances of the
case.”
19109 of 2022 “(a) Call for original
files(s)/record(s) of the
1st respondent authority
relating to passing of the
impugned letter bearing
F.No.110125/2021/K.V.S
./PF/CPF to GPF 482
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
dated 12.07.2021 and
quash the same as
illegal.
(b) For a declaration that
the applicant deemed to
have come under the
GPF (Pension) Scheme in
terms of the Policy under
1st respondent
authorities O.M. in F.No.
152-1/79-
80/KVS/Budget/Part-II
dated 01.09.1988 with
effect from 01.02.1989
and consequently extend
the benefits of GPF
(Pension) scheme to the
applicant
(c) Costs of this Original
Application to be paid by
the respondents.
(d) Pass such further or
other orders as may be
required in facts and
circumstances of the
case.”
20854/2024 “(a) call for the original
file(s)/ record(s) of the
respondents dealing with
the case of the applicant
and peruse the same;
(b) declare that after
regularizing the services
of the applicant
w.e.f.23.05.1988 as Post
Graduate Teacher
(Economics) vide 2nd
respondent’s office order
dated 22.02.2019, the
applicant is entitled to be
granted the benefits of
GPF-cum-Pension
Scheme with all
consequential benefits.
(c)Costs of Original
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
Application to be paid by
the respondents.
(d) Pass such further or
other order as may be
required in the facts and
circumstances of the
case.”
22287/2024 “a. For a direction to the
1st respondent authority
to consider the case of
applicant for grant of
GPF pension scheme
benefits in terms of the
well settled position of
law by way of order
dated 5.5.2022 passed
by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in SLP(C)
No.19952/2021 and
consequently receive the
management share of
CPF paid to the applicant
without any interest and
pay arrears of pension to
the applicant.
b. cost of this OA to be
paid by the respondents.
c. pass such further or
other order as may be
required in facts and
circumstances of the
case.”
11436/2024 “a) Call for the original
files(s)/records(s) of the
1st respondent authority
relating to the
applicant’s case.
b) For a declaration that
the applicant deemed to
have come under the
GPF (Pension) Scheme in
terms of the Policy under
1st respondent
authorities O.M. in
F.No.152-1/79-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
80/KVS/Budget/Part-II
dated 01-09-1988 with
effect from 01-02-1989
and consequently extend
the benefits of GPF
(Pension) Scheme to the
applicant.
c) Costs of this Original
Application to be paid by
the respondents.
d) Pass such further or
and other orders as may
be required in the facts
and circumstances of the
case.”
38. The scope of the prayer is only for the
benefits of GPF that is say, that the employers’
contribution for the period after 01.09.1988. Needless
to say, any CPF benefits received by them, post
01.09.1988, subject to their refund of any of the CPF
benefits received by them at the time of their
superannuation.
39. The decisions relied on by Mr.Srinivasan
are in the context of delay and laches. He has made
reference to Section 21 which deals with limitation.
The provision undoubtedly places a bar on any
application being admitted beyond the periods
stipulated in clauses a and b thereof.
40. A perusal of the tabulation set out at
paragraph 6 (supra) reveals that the applications
have been instituted by the private respondents before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
the Tribunal within six months from the date of last
application. In our considered view, this would suffice
to satisfy the bar of limitation under Section 21(1)(b)
which has been extracted at paragraph 12 above.
41. The attempt of Mr.Srinivasan, to say that
relying on the case cited, is to say that such an
interpretation would tantamount to extending the
limitations beyond what is envisaged in the provision.
We disagree. The ground realities of a situation such
as present cannot lose sight of. The private
respondents are all in service and have been making
representations before the employer regularly. As we
have already indicated, it was unnecessary to even
require them to make representations as their very
O.M. dated 01.09.1988 requires Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan to effect transition to the GPF Scheme.
This has not been done in the case of the private
respondents.
42. Hence, for a default committed by the
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, the employees
cannot suffer to say that their representations and the
institution of the applications before the CAT were hit
by the bar of limitation. This submission does not
appeal to us at all. Hence we find that the ratio of the
decisions cited by Mr.Srinivasan, are entirely
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
distinguishable as on the facts of those cases and the
facts and legalities of the present matter.
43. At the risk of repetition, we must reiterate
that O.M.dated 01.09.1988 was by the Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan itself putting into motion a
scheme of transition from CPF to GPF and providing
expressly that it is only if the option had been
exercised for continuance that the employees would
be retained in the CPF Scheme. There is hence no
merit or we may even say fairness in the Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan taking the present stand. They
are also seen to have complied with the orders in the
cases of many others similarly placed employees and
hence we see no justification for the present private
respondents being denied the same benefit.
44. Mr.Srinivasan points out that the
Tribunal has not dealt with the grounds of limitation
at all. That is true as we do not find any discussion in
the impugned orders relating to the bar of limitation.
While it would have been appropriate that, that
ground had been dealt with, we have dealt with the
same and we believe that this would suffice.
45. In light of the discussion as above, we
are in agreement with the conclusions of the Tribunal
in the orders impugned before us and confirm the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
same. These writ petitions are dismissed. Effect shall
be given to the prayers of the private respondents
before the Tribunal within a period of eight (8) weeks
from date of issuance of a copy of this order. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
2. In the light of the above decision and several of such similar
decisions, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal.
3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed with a direction
to the petitioners that the effect shall be given to the prayer of the
respondent before the Tribunal, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.S.R, J.] [N.S, J.]
14.02.2025
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Sni
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
Note: Issue Order Copy on 03.03.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 07:06:13 pm )
