Employees who did not exercise a positive option to continue to be members of the CPF Scheme as required by the Office Memorandum dated 01.09.1988 would be deemed to be members of the Pension Scheme.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Shri S.P. Tak challenges an order dated 21.07.2016 dismissing OA No.290/00206/15. Shri M.S. Panwar challenges an order dated 04.01.2017 dismissing OA No.290/00427/14.

3. Reasoning in both decisions is common and thus the two writ petitions are being decided by a singular order.

4. Shri S.P. Tak joined service as Physical Education Teacher (P.E.T.) on 01.03.1985. Shri M.S. Panwar joined service as Physical Education Teacher (P.E.T.) on 14.09.1981. Employer was Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan. At that time a Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (hereinafter referred as 'the CPF Scheme') was in vogue under the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and thus both became members of the CPF Scheme. On 01.05.1987 the Government of India issued an Office Memorandum, as per which all Central Government employees who were members of the CPF Scheme were given an option to continue to remain members of the CPF Scheme by exercising a positive option to said effect. As per the Office Memorandum those who did not submit any option would be deemed to have switched over to the Pension Scheme.

5. Following the Government of India Memorandum, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan issued a Memorandum dated 01.09.1988 in pari materia terms.

6. Meaning thereby, employees of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan who desired to continue to be members of the CPF Scheme had to exercise a positive and affirmative option to continue to be a member of the CPF Scheme. They were not to exercise a positive option to switch over to the Pension Scheme. As per the Office Memorandum, those who did not exercise a positive option to continue to be a member of the CPF Scheme would be deemed to be members of the Pension Scheme.

7. Since the two gentlemen realised in the year 2006 that money deducted from their salary was being credited to the CPF account and not the General Provident Fund account they made representations bringing out the position as afore-noted and highlighting the fact that neither of them exercised the positive option to continue to be members of the CPF Scheme. Their requests were turned down. Both approached the Central Administrative Tribunal.

8. Case of the writ petitioners was pleaded in aforesaid terms.

9. The respondents accepted that the two employees had not submitted any option pursuant to the Circular dated 01.09.1988 had opted for the CPF Scheme, and that, Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan did not have any letter exercising option by the two employees. However, stand taken was that while issuing Form 16 for purposes of showing income tax deducted at source, it was indicated to the two gentlemen that money deducted from their salary was being credited in the CPF account. The Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan also relied upon a Circular dated 22.02.2006 as per which employees who had entered service before 31.12.2003 and were governed by the CPF Scheme were not eligible to switch over to the Pension Scheme. Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2014 SC 3655 Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Dwarka Prasad Koolwal & Ors.

10. The two impugned decisions do not deal with the effect of the two writ petitioners not having exercised a positive option to remain members of the CPF Scheme as was contemplated by the Office Memorandum dated 01.09.1988. The decisions notice the Form 16 issued by the Department to the writ petitioners and holds that the writ petitioners were aware that the Department was treating them as members of the CPF Scheme. Representations made by the two in the Year 2006 were held to be of no consequence in view of the Circular dated 22.02.2006 issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development. The Tribunal also held that as Supreme Court decision in Dwarka Prasad's case the two writ petitioners would not be entitled to any relief.

11. As regards the decision of the Supreme Court in Dwarka Prasad's case is concerned, suffice it to state it considered a poli