Sudha Chauhan vs Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur. And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The instant writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 13.12.2018 passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No.290/00412/2017, whereby the O.A. filed by the petitioner has been

dismissed.

The sum and substance of the controversy is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Physical Teacher in the year 1981 in Kendriya Vidyalaya

Sangathan (KVS) and she opted for the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme. The respondents issued office memorandum dated 1.9.1988

permitting all its employees to opt either CPF or switch to General Provident Fund (GPF) scheme. The grievance of the petitioner is that since she did

not submit any option, she ought to have been considered by the GPF scheme.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the original application only on the ground that the Office

Memorandum was issued in 1988 whereas the appellant has approached this Tribunal belatedly in the year 2017. He also submits that the petitioner

did not undertake the option of switching from CPF to GPF scheme. However, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to distinguish the position as to

in what circumstances, the option form dated 18.1.1989 to remain with CPF scheme was signed by the petitioner.

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and after perusing the material available on record as well as the impugned judgment, this Court

is of the firm opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the original application on the ground of delay. The petitioner though initially went

with the assertion that she did not give any option form in pursuance to the memorandum dated 1.9.1988 but the documentary proof was led by the

respondents i.e. option form dated 18.1.1989 (Annex.R/4) which clearly reflected that the petitioner herself opted for continuance in CPF scheme. In

either of the cases, the petitioner has not been able to justify the delay in seeking redressal of her right to switch over to the GPF scheme for the

purpose of pensionary benefits from 1989 till 2017. Whether the option form was filled in 1989 or not, if at all there was any contest, then it was for

the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in time and rather, she has caused extreme delay. The delay in approaching the learned Tribunal by

no stretch of law can be condoned in the given facts and circumstances. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act is absolute and cannot be

interfered with in the present circumstances. No cause of interference is made out in the well reasoned judgment of the learned Tribunal.

Accordingly, the instant writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.