Employee opting for CPF can switch to GPF-cum-Pension Scheme post-cut-off on parity grounds, as pension is beneficial welfare measure; limitation, delay not bars despite superannuation.

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

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

nd “(i) Call for the original file(s) records of the 2 respondents authority relating to passing of the impugned memorandums bearing No.F.11-

PFO30(ASO1)/31-2022-PF/Comp.No.17734/630, dated 19/26.12.2024 (Annexure A-12) & F.110125/1/2017/KVS/CPF to GPF/Court Case/Smt R. Savithri/1748, dated 11.01.2018 (A-5) and quash the same as illegal st (ii) for a direction to the 1 respondent authority to grant GPF (pension) Scheme benefits to the applicant in terms of the well settled position of law in similarly and identically placed cases of KVS employees and consequently adjust the management share of CPF paid to the applicant without any interest against the arrears of pension and pay balance amount of arrears of pension to the applicant.

(iii) cost of the original application to be paid to the respondent and (iv) pass such further or and other order as may be required in facts and circumstance of the case”

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the OA are as follows:

The Applicant joined the services of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) as a Primary Teacher on 14.03.1983 and became a member of the KVS Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme in accordance with the policies then in force. The Applicant superannuated from KVS service on 31.12.2019 while serving at Coimbatore. The first respondent introduced the General Provident Fund (GPF)–cum–Pension Scheme as part of the implementation of the recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission, vide Memorandum dated 01.09.1988, wherein employees were required to exercise an option to continue under the CPF Scheme on or before 31.01.1989, failing which they would be deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme. Despite the Applicant’s failure to exercise any option to continue under the CPF Scheme and her repeated representations from 1991 onwards, she was continued under the CPF Scheme. Consequently, while still in service, she filed OA No.1601/2017, which was disposed of by order, dated 16.10.2017, directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on her pending representation within a stipulated time. In compliance thereof, the first respondent issued a Memorandum dated 11.01.2018, which was contrary to the order, dated 24.02.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P. No.19215/2015. Aggrieved thereby, the Applicant submitted a further representation dated 23.04.2018 seeking review through proper channel, followed by reminders. As no response was received from the respondents, the Applicant was constrained to file OA No.940/2022, which was disposed of by order dated 20.04.2023. Pursuant to the said order, the first respondent passed the impugned order of rejection. Hence, the present Original Application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, in view of the settled position of law, the respondents were under a legal obligation to automatically convert the applicant’s case from the CPF Scheme to the GPF (Pension) Scheme. The failure of the respondents to do so is contrary to their own policy and, therefore, unsustainable in the eyes of law. It was further argued that the rejection of the applicant’s request for coverage under the GPF (Pension) Scheme, in complete disregard of her lawful rights, is arbitrary and illegal.

4. It was also cont