V. Parthiban, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal'), Madras in O.A.No.736 of 2013 along with two other O.As, dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner herein.

2. The writ petitioner herein, has approached the learned Tribunal, seeking the following relief:

"For a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider the representation dated 02.07.2013 of the applicant in terms of the 1st respondent's OM in F.No.152-1/79-80/KVS/Budget/Part-II dated 01.09.1988 and further direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to declare that the applicant deemed to have come under the GPF (Pension Scheme) in terms of the Policy communicated under O.M. in F.No.152-1/79- 80/KVS/Budget/Part-II dated 01.09.1988 w.e.f. 01.02.1989"

3. The petitioner joined service in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (hereinafter referred to as 'KVS') on 5.8.1977 as a Primary Teacher on regular basis and became member of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (in short, 'CPF Scheme') as per the then existing policy of KVS. For the first time, the Government of India introduced General Provident Fund (Pension) Scheme (in short, 'GPF Scheme') on 1.9.1988 purported to be in furtherance of recommendation of IV Central Pay Commission. As per GPF Scheme, the employees who did not exercise their option by 31.1.1996 would automatically get shifted to new GPF Scheme and only employees who want remain with CPF Scheme, they were required to exercise their option. This factual position has not been disputed.

4. It appears that for some reasons, the petitioner remain continued in CPF Scheme as contribution was deducted from his salary towards Provident Fund. However, periodically the petitioner has been representing to the competent authority for conversion of his option to GPF Scheme. Number of representations have been addressed which were filed in the typed set of documents. In spite of such representations, there was no action was forth coming in that regard. In the meanwhile, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. It appears that on retirement, Provident Fund due to the petitioner had also been settled. However, the representations of the applicant have not been considered positively with reference to the instructions issued under GPF Scheme, which prompted the petitioner to approach the Tribunal seeking the aforesaid relief.

5. On behalf of KVS, it was contended before the Tribunal that by the very conduct of the petitioner having continued with CPF Scheme till his date of retirement, is deemed to have been exercised his option to remain with CPF Scheme. Therefore, he is not entitled to conversion from CPF Scheme to GPF Scheme.

6. It was also contended on behalf of KVS that the very representations made by the petitioner on 9.3.2012 would demonstrate the fact that the petitioner had originally opted to remain in CPF Scheme and subsequently, wanted to change his option. This submission was refuted by the petitioner that by oversight, it was mentioned as if he had opted to remain in CPF Scheme, but the fact remained that all his representations were seeking only conversion from CPF Scheme to GPF Scheme and therefore, by virtue of deeming provision provided in the Pension Scheme, he was deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme in the absence of specific option exercised by him.

7. After taking note of the legal and factual submissions, the learned Tribunal dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the enrolment under CPF Scheme continued to the date of the petitioner's retirement and final settlements having been made under the CPF Scheme, the petitioner cannot be allowed to re-assail from that position. The Tribunal also relied on the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "KVS v. Jaspal Kaur and others" and said that the very conduct of the petitioner which demonstrated that he