Anjali Das And Ors vs Union Of India Through Secretary And Ors

The applicants are retired employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), who retired between the years 2002 to 2018. The changeover of KVS employees from the CPF Scheme to GPF-cum-Pension Scheme was introduced through O.M.F.No.152-1/79-80/KVS/Budget/Part-II dated 01.09.1988 by which employees were required to give options to continue under the CPF Scheme. If no option was received then they would be deemed to have come over to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme. Admittedly, the applicants gave their option before 31.01.1989 to continue in CPF Scheme (Para 4.12 of the OA). They have also taken all the payments due under this Scheme. Subsequently, they have changed their mind and now want to get the benefit of GPF-cum-Pension Scheme.

Though the applicants have admitted that they gave their options to continue in the CPF Scheme, but now they have prayed that the respondents be directed to treat them under GPF-cum-Pension Scheme and grant pensionary benefits under the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme. Though in the relief clause, the applicants have not challenged OM dated 01.09.1988 by which the Pension Scheme was introduced in the respondent organization-KVS but they have taken a plea that when Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, Government of India had issued OM No.4/1/87-PIC-1 dated 01.05.1987 giving a cut-off date for options of 30.09.1987, then the respondent-KVS cannot illegally change that cut-off date since it is mutatis mutandis applicable to the KVS as well. Therefore, despite exercising option to remain under CPF Scheme by them, they should be allowed to switch over to the GPF-cum- Pension Scheme since the options were given by them after 30.09.1987.

In support of their claim, the applicants have cited the following court rulings:-

i) Union of India & Anr. Vs. S.L. Verma & Ors. [(2006) 12 SCC 53 - UOI vs. SL Verma;

ii) N.Subramanian vs. Kendriya Vidyala Sangathan [WP (C) No.19215/2015 decided on 24.02.2017 by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras].

iii) Kendriya Vidyala Sangathan vs. N.Subramanian [SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 10965/2018 decided on 18.02.2019.

iv) R. Renuka Devi vs. KVS & Ors. [WP No.25354/ 2015 decided on 05.01.2017 by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras.]

v) Jayaprakash Mishra vs. UOI & Ors. [OA No.330/203/2019 decided on 17.05.22019 by Allahabad Bench of C.A.T.)

vi) M.S. Panwar vs. CAT & Ors. [D.B. CWP No.5976/2017 decided on 04.01.2018 by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur]

vii) Amita Ajit Desai & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [WP No.131/2017 decided on 17.01.2019 by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay]

viii) Commissioner, KVS & Anr. Vs. S.P. Tak [SLP (C) Diary No.(s)21776/2019 decided on 26.07.2019 by the Hon'ble Apex Court].

The respondents have denied the claim of the applicants. They have stated that KVS is an autonomous organization registered under the Societies of Registration Act, 1860. They have further stated that the Board of Governors takes policy decisions in this matter and the Central Government orders are not automatically applicable to the Sangathan until the Board of Governors approves it. The GPF-cum-Pension Scheme was adopted by the KVS vide order dated 01.09.1988 under which the applicants were to give a specific option to continue in the CPF Scheme within the time limit stipulated in the Scheme itself. Therefore, they cannot go back on that since the option once exercised is final.

In support of their contention, the respondents have cited the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KVS & Others vs. Jaspal Kaur & Another [2007(6) SCC 13]. Further, the issue of grant of one time permission to change over from CPF to GPF-cum-Pension Scheme was considered by Ministry of HRD in consultation with the Department of Expenditure vide their letter No.F.3-14/2012-UT-2 dated 07.04.2015, and the following decision was taken:-

"The employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan who were in service as on 1.1.1986 and decided to opt for CPF made a conscious decision knowing well the option exercised is final. Grant of one more option to such CPF Subscribers in KVS could have repercussion elsewhere with such an option having to be extended to all other CPF beneficiaries as well whose number is quite substantial.

In view of above position, the proposal of grant of one time permission for changing from CPF to GPC-cum-Pension Scheme for teaching and non-teaching staff of KVS is not agreed to."

They have also stated that the rulings cited by the applicants in support of their claim do not apply in this case.

Heard Ms. Chabbi Roy, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. U.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. After making extensive oral arguments, learned counsel for the applicants has also filed written arguments along with certain court rulings, which have been referred above.

It is observed that KVS is an autonomous organization registered under the Societies of Registration Act and all the policy decisions are approved by the Board of Governors, which is the Apex Body of this organization. On perusal of the Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare OM dated 01.05.1987, it becomes clear that it is meant only for Central Government employees. The very subject of this OM reads as under:-

"Subject: Change over of the Central Government employees from the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to Pension Scheme - Implementation of the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission."

It can only apply to autonomous organizations once their respective governing bodies approve it. When the KVS Governing Body approved the said Scheme vide OM dated 01.09.1988, it is incomprehensible as to how the cut-off date for exercising options could have been 30.09.1987 i.e. before the approval of the Board of Governors. The relevant part reads as follows:-

"3.2 The employees of the category mentioned above will, however, have an option to continue under the CPF Scheme, if they so desired. 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 28.02.1989 the employees will be deemed to have come over the Pension Scheme. The Head of Office/Principals 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 28.02.1989, 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."

It is absolutely clear that employees of KVS could have exercised their option for continuing under the CPF Scheme which was to be exercised and conveyed by 31.01.1989 to the concerned Head of Office/Principal and to the Signatory of the OM by 28.02.1989, and in case no option was received then only the employees will be deemed to have come over to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme. Admittedly, the applicants had exercised their option to continue in the CPF Scheme within the cut-off date as stipulated in OM dated 01.09.1988. Further, they have also taken their complete dues under the CPF Scheme.

I have also gone through the rulings cited by the applicants and find that in all those cases where the relief had been granted, no option had been given and, therefore, the concerned employee(s) were held to be deemed to have covered under the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme. This is not the case of the applicants in the instant OA, who had specifically exercised their option to remain in CPF Scheme.

The case of Jaspal Kaur (supra) relied upon by the respondents pertains to KVS - the same organization, which is the respondent in the current OA. In the said case, even though the direct option form to continue in CPF Scheme was not available, the entries in service book, Change in CPF number and inclusion of the names of respondents (KVS employees) and the fact that they were contributing towards the CPF, were held to be sufficient evidence of having exercised option by the respondents therein. It was further held that merely because the original documents relating to exercise of option was not produced that should not be a ground to ignore the ample materials produced to show exercise of option, and the appeal of KVS was allowed against allowing switchover to GPF-cum-Pension Scheme.

In view of the above discussion and in light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs, the instant OA is dismissed being devoid of merits. There shall be no order as to costs.