[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhanwar Singh Rathore vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan ... on 9 April, 2026
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:16470-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1135/2026
Bhanwar Singh Rathore S/o Shri Onkar Singh Rathore, Aged
About 62 Years, R/o Plot No. 78, Mohan Nagar A, Bjs Colony,
Jodhpur, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Through The
Commissioner, 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh
Marg, New Delhi 110016.
2. The Joint Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan,18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh
Marg, New Delhi110016.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
Regional Office 92, Gandhi Nagar Marg, Bajaj Nagar,jaipur
302015.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajpal Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
09/04/2026
1. Learned counsel for both the parties submit that the
controversy pertaining to the policy with regard to those of the
employees at the relevant time, who did not opt for GPFS or opted
to remain in CPFS and if they did not make any option, they would
automatically deem to be opting GPFS, has been settled by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of University of Delhi vs.
Shashi Kiran & Ors. reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 594. The
relevant part of Shashi Kiran (supra) judgment reads as
follows-
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:20:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16470-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-1135/2026]
"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 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."
2. Thus, broadly the issue seems to be governed by the
judgment passed in Shashi Kiran (supra). While number of
cases were being decided in light of Shashi Kiran (supra),
learned counsel submits that currently in the matter of Kendriya
Vidhyalaya Sangathan vs. Malathy Pisharasyar N.S & Ors. in
SLP (Civil) Diary No.42885/20225 the Hon'ble Apex Court while
keeping into consideration Shashi Kiran (supra) and KVS &
Ors. vs. Jaspal Kaur (2007 (6) SCC 13), has passed an interim
order staying the operation of the impugned order. The order of
the Hon'ble Apex Court reads as under:-
"1. Delay condoned.
2. These are five matters where the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
(for short 'KVS') is the petitioner. Diary No.42885/2025 (KVS vs.
Malathy Pisharasyar N.S.& Ors.), Diary No.43413/2025 (KVS vs.
N.Alima Beevi & Ors.) & Diary No.43439/2025 (KVS vs. M.R.Indira &
Ors.) are from Kerala. In all three matters, the High Court has
allowed the review, recalled its earlier judgment and set down the
matters for hearing.
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:20:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16470-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-1135/2026]
3. Diary Nos.36684/2025 (KVS & Ors. vs. Usha Bakshi) and Diary
No.23876/2025 (KVS & Anr. vs. Hari Om Verma) are from Rajasthan.
In the said matters final relief have been given to the respondents
applying the judgment of this Court in the University of Delhi vs.
Shashi Kiran (2022 SCC OnLine SC 593).
4. The issue involved in these matters is when employees have
exercised option to come under the Contributory Provident Fund
Scheme(CPFS) whether they can seek to resile from the option and
avail coverage under General Provident Fund Scheme (GPFS).
5. According to Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, learned counsel for the KVS,
such a course is not permissible and according to Mr.Padhi, Shashi
Kiran (supra) does not lay down such an absolute proposition of law.
Mr. Padhi, submits that in Shashi Kiran (supra) benefit was extended
to 75 persons who were left in the said batch of matters, who had
exercised option for CPFS and direction was given to the authorities
to offer them an option in such a manner as the authority deems
appropriate. Mr. Padhi submits that such a course of action was
adopted because in the said batch only 75 persons were left out.
6. Mr. Padhi submits that as far as the Kerala matters are concerned,
the main judgment which is since been recalled, followed the
judgment of this Court in KVS & Ors. vs. Jaspal Kaur (2007 (6) SCC
13) and refused benefit to parties to come under the GPFS once they
had opted for CPFS. Special Leave petitions have also been dismissed
by this Court and in one case the matter was withdrawn.
7. As far as the Rajasthan matters are concerned, benefits have been
extended by the High Court and the employees have been permitted
to come back to the GPFS. Mr. U.N.Singh, learned counsel for the
KVS challenges the said direction also.
8. Mr. Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the sole respondent in Diary
No.36684/2025 appears on caveat and submits that the issue is
concluded by the direction of this Court in Shasi Kiran (supra) in
favour of the respondents.
9. We are of opinion that the issue requires consideration as to
whether employees of the KVS who have exercised option to be
covered under the CPFS can be allowed to come back to the GPFS
and as to whether Shashi Kiran (supra) in fact permits such a course
of action.
10. We need to also consider the holding of this Court in Jaspal Kaur
(supra).
11. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 10.03.2026. 12.
Mr. Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the sole respondent in Diary
No.36684/2025 accepts notice on behalf of the sole respondent.
Hence, formal service of notice is dispensed with on the said
respondent.
13. In the meantime, there shall be stay on the operation of the
impugned judgment and order(s) in all these matters.
14. List the matters on 10.03.2026."
3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue has
been threadbare argued before this Court number of times in
various matters and until Shashi Kiran (supra) was holding the
field, the same was being followed. But after the same has been
stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the finality on the issue shall
depend upon the outcome of the judgment of Kendriya
Vidhyalaya Sangathan (supra), which has been quoted above.
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:20:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16470-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-1135/2026]
4. This Court on such limited submissions and on finding that
the issue had been discussed threadbare and had attained finality
from the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Shashi Kiran
(supra), but has been reopened by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
light of the consideration of Shashi Kiran viz-a-viz Jaspal Kaur
(supra). In the fitness of the circumstances, such adjudication
shall govern the present controversy as well.
5. Thus, the present petition is disposed of while directing that
the broader proposition of CPFS and option for GPFS, which has
been settled at present by keeping Shashi Kiran (supra) into
consideration, has been stayed in Kendriya Vidhyalaya
Sangathan (supra) by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the outcome of
same shall govern the present petition and the respondents shall
be bound to abide by the same proposition of law to be as after
the adjudication of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kendriya
Vidhyalaya Sangathan (supra).
6. It is made clear that though the questions framed in Shashi
Kiran (supra) and the consideration being made in Kendriya
Vidhyalaya Sangathan (supra) are itself elaborate and
contemplate for all prospects of the issue involved, however, in
case after adjudication of the Hon'ble Apex Court, any issue other
than the issue being finally adjudicated there remains, the parties
shall be having liberty to seek revival of the petition on the
perspective, which may be separate it to the adjudication made by
the Hon'ble Apex Court.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
9-nirmala-nishantk/-
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:20:35 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
