Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs Usha Bakshi (2025:Rj-Jd:954-Db) on 7 January, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:954-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13467/2022
1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Through Its Commissioner
Headquaters, 18 Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh
Marg, New Delhi 110016.
2. The Financial Officer, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan 18
Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi
110016.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Regional Officer, 92 Gandhi Nagar Marg, Bajaj Nagar,
Jaipur 302015.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Usha Bakshi W/o Shri Harish Chandra Bakshi, Aged About
62 Years, R/o 4-E-528, Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner
(Raj.).
2. Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Through Its
Registrar, Near Rajasthan High Court Campus, Jodhpur
(Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Himanshu Shrimali.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
07/01/2025
1. Mr. Himanshu Shrimali, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents fairly submits 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
[2025:RJ-JD:954-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-13467/2022]
[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:
"8. At the very outset, we deem it necessary 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 coutoff date
contemplated under notification dated 1.5.1987
and had chosen to remain under CPF Scheme;
but were now 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
[2025:RJ-JD:954-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-13467/2022]
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 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."
2. Mr. Shrimali, further submits that the Special Leave Petition
(Civil) Diary No(s).7301/2024 against the judgment dated
27.07.2023 has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court
vide order dated 22.03.2024.
3. Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, learned counsel representing the
petitioners is not in a position to refute the aforesaid precedent
law having been applicable in the present set of circumstances.
4. Accordingly, this writ petition is also dismissed in the light of
the decision rendered vide order dated 27.07.2023 passed in The
[2025:RJ-JD:954-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-13467/2022]
Joint Commissioner, Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan's case
(supra). All pending applications stand disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
69-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
