The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for direct evidence in exercising the option between pension schemes and the significance of documents and certificates in establishing the employee's choice.

Judgment

DR. ARUIT PASAYAT, J.- Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Respondent 1 joined as a primary school teacher in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (for short "KVS") on 20-7-1978. KVS is an autonomous body running schools all over the country. On 1-9-1988 the KVS issued circular providing for the option to the KVS employees to switch over to GPF Scheme from the CPF Scheme. On 6-3-1989 KVS allotted account numbers in the CPF subscription in which Respondent l’s name is at Serial No.8. This document shows that a number of employees opted for the benefit of CPF Scheme. On 6-7-1989 a new CPF account number was allotted to Respondent 1 for having exercised the option to continue in the CPF Scheme. On 15-7-1989 revised CPF account which was allotted by letter dated 6-3-1989 was further changed vide OM dated 15-7-1989 in which also name of Respondent 1 appeared at Serial No.8. On 15-3-1997 letter was received from Respondent 1 stating that she had been continuing under the CPF Scheme and it should be changed to GPF Scheme. In this letter Respondent 1 stated that she had been contributing towards the CPF and the CPF account number is JRC 1889. On 16-9-2002 Respondent 1 made another representation to change from CPF Scheme to GPF Scheme. By letter dated 7-11-2002 Senior Audit and Accounts Officer rejected the representation for change from CPF Scheme to GPF Scheme. On 8-3-2004 an order was passed by KVS to the effect that Respondent 1 was not entitled to claim benefit of GPF Scheme-cum-Pension Scheme as she had opted for CPF Scheme. She moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short "CAT"). CAT held that she was entitled to claim benefit of GPF Scheme-cum-Pension Scheme. The original application was allowed by CAT on the ground that the appellants did not produce direct evidence to show that Respondent 1 had opted for the Scheme and brushed aside the secondary evidence produced before it by the appellants to the effect that she had been continuing in the CPF Scheme and that she was allotted CPF account number. CAT further held that Respondent 1 was entitled to the benefit of GPF-cum-Pension Scheme on account of her being in service in KVS. Further direction was given to the effect that Respondent 1 was entitled to get GPF-cum-Pension Scheme with effect from the due date with consequential benefits. Writ petition filed before the High Court was dismissed on the sole ground that in spite of the number of opportunities given to the department no direct evidence was furnished. The High Court held that the option was to be exercised in writing and other materials produced were not sufficient to show that Respondent 1 had exercised option.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the reference has been made to various documents which prima facie show that the option had been exercised. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the original documents showing exercise of option were not produced. Merely because some other pieces of evidence were produced, they were not sufficient to show that option had been exercised.

5. In this context it is to be noted that the Tribunal itself noted that in the passbook name of the applicant appears at No. 1889 and the signatures of the Principal of KVS is indicated. It indicates her appointment in KVS from July 1978 to May 1992 in Delhi, from May 1992 to April 2003 at Baddowal, from April 2003 to April 2004 at Halwara and thereafter again at KVS Baddowal.

It shows her Account No. 1889. A copy of the income tax return having deductions from pay and allowance for depositing in the CPF confirm this fact. The secondary pieces of evidence go to show that deductions were being made on regular basis from pay and allowances. This according to CAT was n