Retired employees under CPF scheme are entitled to transfer to GPF-cum-Pension Scheme due to administrative error and non-exercise of valid options.

ORDER Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

In the present case, the applicants seek the following reliefs:

“(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 22.1.2018 (Annexure A/1), declaring to the effect that the whole action of the respondents not accepting the request of the applicants for shifting them from CPF scheme to GPF pension scheme is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and, consequently, pass directions to the respondents to treat the applicants as governed by GPF- cum-pension scheme with all consequential benefits, including granting the service pension from the date of retirement with arrears and interest.

(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants, with the cost of litigation."

2. The core issue in the present Original Application concerns whether the applicants—retired teachers of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), all appointed prior to 01.01.1986—are entitled to be governed under the General Provident Fund-cum-Pension Scheme instead of the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that as per Government of India O.M. dated 01.05.1987, all CPF beneficiaries who were in service on 01.01.1986 and continued thereafter were deemed to have come over to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme unless they exercised a specific option to remain in CPF before 30.09.1987. None of the applicants had submitted such an option; hence, they stood automatically covered under the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme.

3.1. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that KVS, by extending the option date to 31.01.1989 through its O.M. dated 01.09.1988, acted contrary to the Government’s decision and continued them in CPF illegally.

3.2. Learned counsel relied upon the following decisions:

(i) Judgment dated 22.03.2012 of Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in Johnsen P. John v. KVS (OA 457/2011).

(ii) Judgment dated 25.03.2014 of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in Santosh Kumar Verma & Usha Rani Singh (OA 1027/2014 & 1039/2014 respectively).

(iii) Judgment dated 24.02.2017 of Hon’ble Madras High Court in N. Subramanian v. KVS .

3.3. Finally, learned counsel argued that in light of the recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 3172/2019, titled ‘Bharti Bahuguna vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors.’ on 02.09.2025, the applicants therein have been categorized into three sets and have been accorded the benefit of conversion.

4. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the KVS submitted that the KVS is an autonomous body and the Government of India O.M. dated 01.05.1987 applies only to Central Government employees under the CPF Rules, 1962. KVS, by its O.M. dated 01.09.1988, independently adopted the changeover decision and allowed existing employees to either opt for the Pension Scheme or retain CPF, making the option final.

4.1. It is further stated that all the applicants consciously opted to continue under CPF and remained covered till retirement. The proposal for reopening the option was examined by the Ministry of Education in consultation with the Department of Expenditure and rejected vide letter dated 07.04.2015, noting that any further changeover would have serious fiscal repercussions.

5. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicants denied the fact of applicants’ having exercised any valid option to remain in CPF and reiterated that KVS had no authority to extend the option date beyond 30.09.1987 fixed by the Government of India. It is further submitted that appicants’ continuation under CPF was due to administrative error and that identical claims h