The imposition of differential interest rates on pension fund recovery constitutes arbitrary discrimination against the applicant, violating principles of equal treatment.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

“a. Call for the original file(s)/record(s) of the 1st respondents authority relating to passing of the impugned memorandum bearing No. F. No. 110125/2018/KVS/PF/Conversion from CPF to nd GPF/99 dated 13-06-2022 {Annexure A-19} and 2 respondent authority's consequential orders bearing Nos. F.27301/2022 -23/KVS(MR)/Accounts dated 22.06.2022 {Annexure A-21 & F.27230-709/2022- 23/KVS(MR)/Accounts/ GR/SA-Pension/3878 dated 21-10-2022 {Annexure A-26} and quash the portion of levying interest @ 9% p.a on the CPF management share of the applicant as illegal.

b) For a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondent authorities to refund an amount of Rs.8,46,133/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Forty-Six Thousand One Hundred Thirty-Three only) together with interest @ 9% p.a from 06-12-2022 to till disbursement of the amount discriminately recovered as interest on MSCPF from the applicant while sanctioning of pension benefits.

c) Costs of this Original Application to be paid by the respondents.

d) Pass such further or and other order as may be required in facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The factual matrix of the case are as follows:

The applicant joined the services of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) as a Primary Teacher on 15.03.1982 and became a member of the KVS Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme on 31.07.1982, in accordance with the prevailing policies at that time. Her CPF account number was MRC 1840. Subsequently, she was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in Sanskrit on direct recruitment basis with effect from 29.09.1982, initially on probation for two years, and was confirmed upon successful completion of the probationary period. KVS introduced the General Provident Fund (GPF) cum Pension Scheme vide Memorandum, dated 01.09.1988, in partial implementation of the recommendations of the IV Central Pay Commission (CPC). As per the scheme, employees were required to submit their option to continue under the CPF scheme by 31.01.1989, failing which they would be deemed to have opted for the GPF cum Pension Scheme. The applicant did not submit her option form within the stipulated time and was therefore deemed to have opted for the Pension Scheme. However, she continued to be erroneously covered under the CPF scheme despite submitting repeated representations and requests for correction, which went unanswered by the authorities. Consequently, she was superannuated on 31.07.2013 without being granted pension. The applicant continued to make representations, the latest being on 15.12.2017. Receiving no response, she was constrained to file OA No. 103 of 2018, which was disposed of by this Tribunal on 30.01.2018. Pursuant to that, the 1st Respondent issued a Memorandum of Rejection on 15.05.2018, which the applicant challenged in OA No. 683/2018. This OA, along with three others, was disposed of by a common order, dated 02.04.2019, wherein the respondents were directed to review their decision based on the outcome of the pending Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Hon’ble Madras High Court’s order dated 24.02.2017 in WP No. 19215/2015. The Respondents challenged the said order before the Hon’ble Madras High Court in WP No. 17165/2020 (Smt. R. Amutha case), which was dismissed on merits on 07.12.2020, with a specific direction to the original applicant to refund the CPF amount received. A separate Writ Petition (WP No. 18679/2020) filed by the Respondents against the present applicant was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court on 15.12.2020, relying on the earlier judgment in WP No. 17165/2020. Due to non-compliance with the High Court’s order, the applicant filed Contempt Petition No. 1083/2021. The Respondents appea