Telangana High Court
Tangirala Sreedevi vs Union Of India on 12 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN
WRIT PETITION No.29387 OF 2025
ORDER:
This Writ Petition assails the order dated 12.02.2024
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT),
Hyderabad, in O.A.No.21/1485/2015, whereby the Tribunal
dismissed the Original Application filed by the late husband of
the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner had filed the
subject O.A. seeking a direction to the respondents to grant him
one more opportunity to switch over from the Contributory
Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme to the General Provident Fund-
cum-Pension (GPF-cum-Pension) Scheme.
2. Heard Sri T.P.Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner;
Sri A.Kranti Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Ajay Kumar Kulkarni and learned counsel for
respondent No.4.
Factual Matrix (in brief)
3. The factual background, necessary for the adjudication of
the present writ petition, is as follows:
i) Late T. Vijaya Kumar (husband of the writ
petitioner) was appointed as a Post Graduate Teacher in
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) on 05.08.1985 and
was initially governed by the CPF Scheme;
ii) Following the Fourth Central Pay Commission, the
Government of India issued an Office Memorandum on
01.05.1987 (Ex.P2), allowing a switch over to the GPF-
cum-Pension Scheme. Employees in service on
01.01.1986 were deemed to have switched over to the
GPF-cum-Pension Scheme unless they specifically opted
out and desired to continue to be governed by the CPF
Scheme by 30.09.1987. The relevant portion of the Office
Memorandum is extracted as under:
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 by 30.09.1987 in
the form enclosed if the employees wish to continue under the
CPF Scheme. If no option is received by the Head of Office by
the above date the employees will be deemed to have come
over to the Pension Scheme.
3.3. The CPF beneficiaries, who were in service on 1.1.1986,
but have since retired and in whose case retirement benefits
have also been paid under the CPF Scheme, will have an
option to have their retirement benefits calculated under the
Pension Scheme provided they refund to the Government, the
Government contribution to the Contributory Provident Fund
and the interest thereon, drawn by them at the time, of
settlement of the CPF Account. Such option shall be exercised
latest by 30.09.1987.
3.4. ****
3.5 ****
3.6 The option once exercised shall be final.
iii) KVS adopted the scheme mutatis mutandis vide its
Office Memorandum dated 01.09.1988, extending the date
of exercise option till 31.01.1989.
iv) The husband of the petitioner consciously opted to
continue under the CPF Scheme on 09.01.1989 by
submitting a signed option form dated 09.01.1989;
v) 26 years later, in the year 2015, while still in service,
the husband of the petitioner filed O.A.No.21/1485/2015
before the CAT seeking "one more chance" to switch to the
GPF-cum-Pension Scheme, citing subsequent disparities
in benefits;
vi) The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed his O.A.
on 12.02.2024, primarily on the grounds that he had
exercised a conscious option which was final, and his
claim for switch over cannot be allowed on account of
inordinate delay and laches.
vii) The husband of the petitioner expired on 15.01.2025.
The petitioner now seeks family pension, which would be
available, only if her husband was covered under the
GPF-cum-Pension Scheme. The petitioner claims the
benefit of family pension on the ground that the High
Court of Delhi had held that similarly placed employees
were entitled to the switch over of GPF-cum-Pension
Scheme from CPF Scheme and that delay was not
attracted.
Contentions on behalf of the petitioner
i) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the
Delhi High Court in W.P.(C).No.3172 of 2019 and
batch dated 02.09.2025 (Ex.P-8). Learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that the Delhi High Court in the said
writ petition has categorised the employees into three
categories which are as follows:
I. Category A: Employees who had not opted to continue in
the CPF Scheme during the prescribed period of five
months, that is, from 01.09.1988 to 31.01.1989, in terms
of the KVS OM dated 01.09.1988.
II. Category B: Employees who had opted to continue in
the CPF Scheme during the said five-month period from
01.09.1988 to 31.01.1989 and now want to switch over to
the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme.
III. Category C: Employees who were direct appointees (or
whose services were confirmed/regularised) between
01.01.1986 and 31.12.2003, when the CPF Scheme was
not in operation
The Delhi High Court held that the switch over for
category B employees therein as in the present case is
permissible and the claim is not barred by delay, laches
or limitation.
ii) The learned counsel further contends that GPF-cum-
Pension Scheme is a beneficial legislation intended for the
post-retirement security of the employees and as such, a
liberal compassionate view should be taken, especially
considering the fact that the wife of the deceased, who is
the petitioner in the present case, is a dependent widow.
iii) The learned counsel contends that other similarly
placed KVS employees and the employees in other
Government Departments have been granted the similar
benefit of switching over from CPF Scheme to GPF-cum-
Pension Scheme. The denial of the same to the
petitioner's husband would amount to arbitrary
discrimination and violates Article 14 of the Constitution
of India.
iv) It is contended that right to pension is a continuing
cause of action. The petitioner, as the widow, is now
claiming a right to family pension, which is a recurring
cause of action that arises each month, and as such the
ground of delay is not attracted.
v) The petitioner is a 64 years old housewife and will face
severe financial hardship and irreparable loss if she is
denied the family pension and prayed to allow the switch
over (deemed), of her husband from the CPF to the GPF-
cum-Pension Scheme.
Contentions on behalf of the respondents
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, in
unison, contended as under:
i) The deceased employee made a conscious, informed and
irrevocable choice to remain under the CPF Scheme in
1989. The explicit terms of the Office Memorandum dated
01.05.1987 clearly states that an option once exercised
shall be final. The deceased employee enjoyed the benefits
of the CPF Scheme throughout his service and upon
retirement; and the conversion from CPF to the GPF
Pension Scheme at the belated stage is not possible.
ii) The employee waited for over 25 years after exercising
his option to remain under the CPF Scheme. The
employee cannot be allowed to agitate the issue to switch
over from the CPF Scheme to the GFP cum Pension
Scheme after the inordinate and unexplained delay of over
25 years. The unexplained and inordinate delay over 25
years in itself is a sufficient ground to dismiss the
petition.
iii) The reliance of the petitioner on the judgment of the
Delhi High Court in W.P.(C). No. 3172 of 2019 and batch,
is completely misplaced. The Delhi High Court in the
above mentioned case allowed Category B claims, in a
specific context and with the crucial condition that
employees must refund the employer's CPF contribution
with interest. They contended that more importantly,
each case must be decided on its own facts, and the
principle of finality of option cannot be completely
ignored.
iv) Learned counsel for the respondents' contended that
granting such belated claims, especially after the
settlement of terminal benefits and the employee's demise,
places an unjust and unanticipated financial burden on
the exchequer and sets a dangerous precedent, opening
floodgates for similar stale claims.
v) The petitioner has no legal right to demand a switch
over from a scheme that her husband voluntarily chose
and was governed by until his death. The consideration
of the request for one more chance to convert from one
scheme to another is a matter of policy and not a legal
entitlement.
4. We have given our anxious considerations to the
submissions and perused the record, including the judgment
in W.P.(C).No. 3172 of 2019 and batch of the Delhi High Court.
Analysis and Reasoning:
5. The cornerstone of the scheme introduced in 1987-88 was
the provision of a conscious choice to the employees. The
petitioner's husband consciously and voluntarily exercised his
option in writing to continue under the CPF Scheme. The terms
of the Office Memorandum were clear and unambiguous that
the option was final. Having made a calculated choice and
reaped the benefits of CPF Scheme throughout his career and at
the time of retirement, his legal representatives cannot now be
permitted to resile from that position decades later. In this
regard, the principle of estoppel and waiver squarely applies to
the facts of this case.
6. The employee waited for over 25 years after exercising his
option and about two years prior to his retirement, raised this
claim and prayed for one more option to switch over to other
GPF-cum-Pension Scheme, which he considered beneficial.
This is clearly an afterthought. This delay of 25 years
constitutes an inordinate and unexplained delay.
7. The doctrine of laches would apply to the present case.
Granting relief in such a stale claim would set a dangerous
precedent, unsettling long-closed financial transactions and
would open the flood gates of similar stale claims.
8. The petitioner's argument of continuing cause of action is
completely misplaced. It is to be noted that in the present case,
the cause of action, if any, arose in the year 1989 when the
option was exercised and given effect by the employee. The
subsequent deduction of the CPF was a consequence of the
employee's own choice, not a "wrong." Further, the petitioner's
reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Union of
India & Anr v. Tarsem Singh 1 is distinguishable as that case
involved a recurring non-payment of a benefit that was due, not
a one-time, conscious selection between two distinct schemes as
in the present case.
9. The petitioner's entire case rests on the erroneous
assumption that her late husband's situation is squarely
covered by the Judgment of the Delhi High Court in regard to
the Category B claims. However, the present case is covered by
the specific and binding law laid down by the Supreme Court in
(2008) 8 SCC 648
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v. Jaspal Kaur
and another 2.
10. The Judgment of Delhi High Court in W.P.(C). No. 3172 of
2019 and batch does not automatically mandate that every
single Category B claim must be allowed, irrespective of its
unique facts. The decision highlights the importance of the
beneficial nature of the pension scheme but cannot be
construed to obliterate the fundamental principles of finality,
delay, and acquiescence. It is trite law that each case must be
judged on its own facts. In the present case, the combination of
a conscious, final option and an inexplicable delay of 26 years,
distinguishes it from cases where employees may have pursued
their claims with more diligence.
11. The petitioner is essentially seeking to quash the order of
the Central Administrative Tribunal. The decision of the
Tribunal is based on the facts of delay and finality, is a
plausible and legal one. The order of the CAT does not suffer
from any perversity or error of law that warrants the
interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
12. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this Writ
Petition. The order of the Tribunal is legal, just and equitable
and does not call for any interference. The petitioner's reliance
(2007) 6 SCC 13
on the Delhi High Court judgment in W.P.(C).No. 3172 of 2019
and batch is insufficient to overcome the significant hurdles of a
conscious, final option exercised by the petitioner's husband
and the inordinate and unexplained delay in the present case.
13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
G.M. MOHIUDDIN, J
Date: 12.11.2025
ssp
