Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Himmat Singh Panwar vs Commissioner, (2025:Rj-Jd:10741-Db) on 24 February, 2025
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:10741-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15303/2022
Himmat Singh Panwar S/o Shri Radha Kishan, Aged About 64
Years, B/c Panwar, Resident Of Sector 21, Chopasani Housing
Board, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Commissioner, Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangthan, 18,
Institutional Area, Sahid Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi -
110001.
2. Joint Commissioner, (Administration), Kendriya
Vidhyalaya Sangthan, Jaipur Region, Gandhi Path, Bajaj
Nagar, Jaipur - 302006.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Shrimali with
Mr. Himanshu Shrimali
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari with
Mr. Gaurav Choudhary
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
24/02/2025
1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the
controversy involved in the present writ petition is no more
res-integra and it is covered by the decision rendered by the
Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in The Joint
Commissioner, Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan & Anr. v.
Miss Vijay Laxmi Sharma [D.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.16677/2022] and other connected writ petitions on
27.07.2023. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as
under:-
[2025:RJ-JD:10741-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-15303/2022]
"8. At the very outset, we deem it ncessary to take
note of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated
in Shashi Kiran (supra). While dealing with the issue of
switch over by employees from the C.P.F Scheme to the
Pension-cum-G.P.F. Scheme, the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt
with three distinct types of eventualities. They are reiterated
herein-under;
"4. In these circumstances, Writ Petitions were
filed in the High Court claiming diverse reliefs.
These petitions, by order dated 21.05.2012
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High
Court, were categorized into three categories.
a. Employees who had exercised any option at all
and thus by virtue of the deeming provisions
contemplated in the notification dated
01.05.1987, were deemed to have "come over"
to GPF; but having continued to make
contributions under the old CPF scheme were
being treated to be under CPF. This batch was
subsequently referred to as "R.N. Virmani batch
of cases" in the decisions rendered by the High
Court.
b. Employees who had not exercised the option
by the cutoff date contemplated under the
notification dated 01.05.1987 and were thus
deemed to have come over" to GPF; however,
such employees had exercised the option to
remain under CPF scheme during first two
extensions granted by the University between
01.10.1987 to 29.02.1988; and were now
praying that they be allowed to be under GPF.
This batch of cases was described to be "N.C.
Bakshi batch of cases in the decisions rendered
by the High Court.
c. Employees who had exercised positive option
by 30.09.1987 i.e. by the original cutoff dated
[2025:RJ-JD:10741-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-15303/2022]
contemplated under notification dated 1.5.1987
and had chosen to remain under CPF Scheme;
but were not demanding that they be given
further option and were therefore praying for
extension of the cut-off date to enable them to
"come over" to GPF. This group of matters was
referred to as "Shashi Kiran" batch of cases" in
the decisions rendered by the High Court.
5. Thus, the employees in all three batches of
cases desired to be under GPF rather than under
CPF and were therefore praying for a chance to
facilitate such switchover. The reason for such
attempts was spelt out with clarity in one of the
letters addressed."
9. While dealing with the aspect of switch over, in all the
three distinct types of eventualities as noted above, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that the switch over from the
C.P.F. Scheme to to the G.P.F. Scheme shall be permissible
and the claims of the employees shall not be barred by the
doctrine of delay and laches and/or limitation, in light of the
fact that the schemes as put in operation, accrued for the
welfare of the employees. In essence, the very choice to
select a scheme stemmed and/or formed part of a beneficial
piece of legislation, thereby permitting switch over between
the two schemes. Therefore, as per the dictum as
enunciated in Shashi Kiran (supra), it has been categorically
held that switch over shall be permissible to the employees,
in the following three eventualities i.e. (i) wherein the
employees had not exercised any option at all; (ii) wherein
the employees had not exercised their option by the cut-off
date and (iii) wherein the employees had exercised the
positive option by the cut-off date but were eventually
demanding a change in connection therewith. The rationale
for permitting switch over in the said eventualities, as
enumerated above, was that the very choice to select a
scheme accrued for the welfare of the employees."
[2025:RJ-JD:10741-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-15303/2022]
2. Upon such joint submission, the present writ petition is
allowed in light of the decision rendered in The Joint
Commissioner, Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan's case (supra). All
pending applications stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
24-nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
