The court held that failure to submit an option form does not negate entitlement to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme, emphasizing the need for reconsideration of the applicant's claims.

ORDER

Per : Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)

The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant, by challenging the impugned order dated 21.04.2022 seeking the following reliefs:-

“a. This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside order dated 21.04.2022 at ANNEXURE A1.

b. This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondents to treat the applicant as covered by GPF cum pension scheme.

c. This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondents to recalculate the retirement dues including pension, of the Applicant, by considering him to be covered by GPF-cum-Pension Scheme, and pay the Applicant his dues, if any.

d. Such other orders be passed as the facts and circumstances of the case may require.

e. Cost of this Application be provided for.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed to the post of Laboratory Assistant by Respondent No.1 on 20.11.1970 and retired from service from the post of Lab. Assistant on 31.05.2007. It is stated that at the time of retirement applicant has submitted necessary forms for getting pension. It was further submitted that the applicant was wrongly informed by the respondents that he is under Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPF Scheme).

2.1. It is stated that the respondent authorities in the year 1988 vide OM dated 01.09.1988 stated that -

“2. It has, accordingly, been decided that person joining service in the Sangathan on or after 01.01.1988 shall be governed only by G.P.F. Cum-Pension Scheme and will have no option for C.P.F. Scheme. …

3. The employees of the category mentioned above will, however, have an option to continue under the CPF Scheme, if they so desire. The option will have to be exercised and conveyed to the concerned Head of Office/Principal by 31.1.1989 in duplicate, in the form enclosed (one form may be sent to this office while the other kept with personal records of the employee concerned) if the employees wish to continue under the CPF Scheme. If no option is received by the Head of Office/Principal by the above date and in this office through them by 28.2.1989 the employees will be deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme. The Head of Office/Principals are to forward in one lot options exercised by employees for retention of CPF Scheme received by them, to reach Sangathan's Office latest by 28.02.1989. Where no option to continue under the CPF Scheme is received by them from any, a nil report be sent by due date viz. 28.2.1989.”

2.2. It is further stated that the aforesaid OM was implemented by adopting OM dated 01.05.1987 issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioner's Welfare, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions which states that “3. All CPF beneficiaries, who were in service on 1.1.1986 and who are still in service on the date of issue of these orders will be deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme.”

2.3. It is further submitted that recently the applicant learnt that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr. Vs. V.D. Pandey had upheld the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which had upheld the order of the Hon'ble CAT, Principal Bench, wherein in a similar matter the respondents were directed to treat the applicant as covered by GPF-cum-Pension Scheme. However, as the respondent authorities were not paying him his pension, the applicant vide letter dated 12.04.2022 submitted a representation. However, the same was rejected vide communication dated 21.04.2012.

2.4. It is submitted that impugned order is unreasoned and arbitrary without taking note of the fact that after implementation of OM dated 01.09.1988, the applicant has never opted to continue under the CPF Scheme. Therefore, as per OM dated 01.09.1988 he is deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme and the said issue was decided in O.A.1999/2014 (V.D. Pandey Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr.) by the CAT, Principal Bench.

3. After notice, the respondents have filed their reply and contested the O.A