Circumstantial evidence of CPF account, deductions, and acceptance without protest proves option retention despite no original form; acquiescence bars switch to pension scheme post-retirement.

ORDER

Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rameshwar Vyas, Member (J)

Being aggrieved by Memorandum dated 13/17.05.2022 (Annexure-A/1) whereby the applicant was not allowed to switch over from CPF to GPF-cum-Pension Scheme, the applicant, in second round of litigation, has preferred this OA for direction to consider his services as governed by GPF-cum-Pension Scheme w.e.f. 01.09.1988 pursuant to Memorandum dated 01.09.1988 (Annexure-A/3).

2. Facts of the case in brief are as under:-

2.1 The applicant was initially appointed as Primary Teacher (PRT) under the KVS. In 1983 at the time of his joining, he opted for the CPF Scheme. Prior to 1986 in KVS, there were two Schemes i.e. General Provident Fund (GPF)-cum-Pension Scheme and the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) and employees of the KVS had an option, to be a member of the CPF Scheme or the GPF Scheme. The terminal monetary benefits were admissible under both the Scheme ; the payment of pension benefits and death-cum-retirement gratuity was paid to the employees of the Sangathan as per the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The contributory provident fund was paid as per the provisions of the Contributory Provident Fund Rules (India), 1962. After implementation of the recommendations under the Fourth Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.1986, the respondents by Office Memorandum dated 01.09.1988 permitted employees to retain in CPF Scheme by way of option form and in case of non-opting CPF, the General Provident Fund Scheme would be applicable.

2.2 It is the case of the applicant that he never submitted his option to continue under the CPF Scheme. Since he did not submit any option, he was under the impression that he is under the GPF Scheme. It is averred that the applicant till his retirement was continuing under the CPF Scheme on account of wrong committed by the respondents by not treating applicant automatically under the GPF scheme as per provisions of the para-3 of OM dated 01.09.1988. In the year 2006, he came to know the above facts, then he submitted individually as well as through the employees’ Union to make suitable corrections and consider the applicant under GPF scheme. But the grievance of the applicant was not redressed by the respondents. Vide order dated 23.10.2006 (Annexure- A/4), the respondents informed that the proposal of grant of permission to change from CPF to GPF cannot be agreed. After having came to know about the order dated 23.10.2006, the applicant again submitted an application whereby he clarified his actual grievance that he is not seeking change of scheme from CPF to GPF as in fact his claim was to retain him in GPF scheme pursuant to the provision of para-3 of OM dated 01.09.1988. The respondent did not reply to the representation. Vide common order dated 15.06.2015 addressed to the Secretary General of Employees’ Union, the claim of the employees was denied. In these circumstances, the applicant served a legal notice (Annexure- A/5), upon the respondents on 17.04.2018 but the same was not replied. The applicant superannuated on 31.01.2020, but his grievance has not been redressed by the respondents. In these circumstances, he filed this OA for redressal of his grievance.

2.3 It is the case of the applicant that as per OM dated 01.09.1988, the employees serving on 01.01.1986 who do not submit any option to continue under the existing CPF scheme would automatically be switched over to new scheme i.e. GPF-cum-Pension Scheme. The applicant did not submit any option to continue in the CPF scheme. Therefore, he was required to be brought under the GPF scheme automatically. It is further averred that after 01.01.1986, the respondents issued the fresh CPF number to it