Direct recruits post-1986 wrongly under CPF (non-operational) entitled to switch to GPF-pension with CPF recoupment.

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

By virtue of the present OA, the applicant seeks the following relief(s):

“(i)That the Hon'ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to pass an order, declaring to the effect that the whole action of the respondents applying the CPF Scheme on the applicant on his fresh appointment as PGT on 28.8.1986 is void-ab-initio as in the year 1986, CPF Scheme was not in operation for fresh appointment and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to treat the applicant as governed by GPF cum pension scheme with all consequential benefits including the arrears of pension from the date of retirement with interest.

(ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to adjust the CPF paid to the applicant in the GPF.

(iii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant with the cost of litigation.”

2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was initially appointed in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan as a TGT on 07.07.1981. Subsequently, he was appointed to the post of PGT (Biology) on 28.08.1986 through direct recruitment. The applicant superannuated on 31.08.2015 from the post of Vice Principal.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant draws attention to Annexure A/7, which reads as under:

4. He further contends that the applicant was appointed as Vice Principal, and that the applicant, namely Hosiar Singh, filed OA No. 3112/2013, which was allowed and implemented by the respondents. The applicant made a representation prior to his superannuation on 31.08.2015 [page 19]. No decision has been taken by the respondents concerning the said representation, despite internal communications amongst them. The applicant also relies upon the decision rendered in OA 3112/2013 in the matter of Hosiyar Singh vs. Union of India and in OA 2073/2014 in the matter of B.S. Tyagi vs. Union of India & Ors. He further relies on a similar situation that has been implemented

5. He further relies on the fact that this issue has already been addressed in OA No. 3324/2019, Lalit Chandra Pandey, as well as in OA No. 3093/2019, Mohd. Nayeem Uddin vs. KVS and Ors.. The applicant contends that in respect of exercising the option of whether to be considered a direct recruit or a promotee, the same benefits have been extended regarding conversion from the CPF to the GPF Scheme in the case titled OA 153/2019, Mrs. Gurmil Kaur vs. KVS and Ors.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the grant of any relief. He contends that there is no formula that can be uniformly applied to all categories of persons. The applicant is seeking relief after an inordinate delay and laches, i.e., from the date of initial appointment as a direct recruit in 1986, after 29 years of service, and similar benefits post-retirement cannot be extended, he draws attention to para 3 of counter reply which reads as under:-

“3. Moreover, the applicant has filed the present O.A. after lapse of many years of opting for CPF scheme. The case of the applicant is well covered under the judgment dated 12.03.2021 of High Court of Delhi in the matter KVS vs Manju Sehgal, WP - 7712/2020 and in the matter of KVS vs Ramesh Chandra Agarwal, WpP 9851/2020, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has relied on KVS &ors. vs. Jaspal Kaur and Anr., CA No.2876/2007 and declined the claim of the respondent for conversion to GPF-cum- pension scheme relying upon the secondary evidence available with the petitioner, as well as on the ground of delay and laches. Hon'ble High Court took note of the fact that the respondent has represented to KVS for change from CPF