The lack of timely exercise of option prevents automatic conversion from CPF to GPF-cum-Pension Scheme, reaffirming the need for adherence to procedural requirements in service jurisprudence.

Judgment :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. By means of this application, the Petitioner calls in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A. No.231 of 2021, whereby the claim of the Petitioner for conversion from the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme has been rejected, inter alia, on grounds which, according to the Petitioner, are contrary to the applicable Office Memoranda and settled principles governing service jurisprudence.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present application are that the Petitioner was initially appointed as a Librarian under the Opp. Party No.2 on 16.11.1981 and his services were subsequently confirmed on 30.04.1984. At the time of his appointment, his service conditions were governed under the CPF Scheme. It is stated that pursuant to the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission, the Government of India issued Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 providing for a shift from CPF to GPF Scheme, which was thereafter adopted by the Opp. Party No.1 vide Office Memorandum dated 01.09.1988, stipulating that employees in service as on 01.01.1986 would be deemed to have come over to the GPF- cum-Pension Scheme unless they exercised an option to continue under the CPF Scheme within the prescribed time. The Petitioner did not exercise any option to continue under the CPF Scheme within the stipulated period and, therefore, claims that he ought to have been treated as having been covered under the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme. The Petitioner continued in service and, upon attaining the age of superannuation, retired on 29.02.2016. It is further stated that subsequent to his retirement, the Petitioner submitted a representation on 03.10.2018 before the Opp. Party No.1 seeking conversion from CPF to GPF-cum- Pension Scheme. The Petitioner also sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 pursuant to which it was intimated that no record was available indicating that he had exercised any option to continue under the CPF Scheme.

According to the Petitioner, similarly situated employees have been extended the benefit of conversion to the GPF-cum- Pension Scheme. As his grievance remained unaddressed, the Petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench by filing O.A. No.231 of 2021. The said Application, along with analogous matters, was disposed of by order dated 20.12.2023, whereby the claim of the Petitioner was rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present writ application has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, pursuant to the Office Memorandum dated 01.09.1988, all employees who were in service as on 01.01.1986 were required to be shifted to the GPF- cum-Pension Scheme unless they specifically exercised an option to continue under the CPF Scheme within the stipulated period. In the present case, admittedly, the Petitioner never exercised any such option, however, by operation of the deeming provision, he ought to have been treated as a member of the Pension Scheme. It is further submitted that the information obtained under the RTI Act clearly indicates that no option form was available in the service records of the Petitioner, thereby fortifying his claim. Learned counsel also contends that similarly situated employees under the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan have been extended the benefit of conversion from CPF to GPF-cum-Pension Sch