The court affirmed that teachers of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan automatically transitioned to the GPF Scheme without exercising an option to remain in the CPF Scheme, as per the O.M. dated 01.09.1988.

ORDER :

(Anita Sumanth, J.)

(Prayer in W.P.No.20091 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certioari calling for the records from the file of the Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench made in O.A.No.948 of 2022 dated 20.04.2023 and quash the same.)

(Prayer in W.P.No.22287 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certioari calling for the records from the file of the Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench made in O.A.No.969 of 2022 dated 08.02.2023 and quash the same.)

(Prayer in W.P.No.11436 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certioari calling for the records of the 2 nd respondent (Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench) culminating in the impugned order dated 03.02.2023 in O.A.No.825 of 2021 and quash the same.)

(Prayer in W.P.No.20854 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certioari calling for the records of the 2 nd respondent (Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench) culminating in the impugned order dated 03.02.2023 in O.A.No.694 of 2021 and quash the same.)

(Prayer in W.P.No.19109 of 2002: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certioari calling for the records of the 2 nd respondent (Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench) culminating in the impugned order dated 21.02.2021 in O.A.No.672 of 2021 and quash the same.)

In disposing these five writ petitions by way of a common order as the issue arising for consideration is the same though dealt with by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/Tribunal) by way of different orders.

2. The issue that arises for consideration in common relates to the grant of pension benefits. The Secretary, Ministry of Education (P1) and various authorities of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan collectively referred to as (P2 – P4) are the petitioners and the teachers appointed in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Schools are the private respondents before us.

3. The private respondents had rendered services as Teachers in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Schools. The dates of joining and their dates of retirement are as set out below:-

4. P1 had introduced the General Pension Fund (GPF) (Pension Scheme) as a measure of implementation of recommendations of the IV Central Pay Commission vide its memorandum dated 01.09.1988. The Scheme provided an automatic transition from the Contributory Pension Fund (CPF Scheme). In the event, the employee desired to continue in the CPF Scheme he/she was to exercise such option by 31.01.1989.

5. The private respondents had averred that no such option form was filed by them. The petitioners, especially P2 to P4, would also confirm before us that the records do not contain any option forms having been submitted by the private respondents. The Tribunal had hence proceeded on the basis that no option has been exercised by the private respondents and there is no reason for this Court to deviate from that factual position. The admitted facts is thus that none of the private respondents, before us, exercised the option to continue in the CPF Scheme and they are hence deemed to have automatically transitioned to the GPF Scheme.

6. While so, P2 to P4 continue to treat the private respondents as coming under the erstwhile CPF Scheme alone and it is the say of the private respondents both before the Tribunal and before us that they had made representations on various dates seeking consequential effect be given to the transition to GPF Scheme. The dates of their representation as furnished by the petitio