Employee opting for CPF can switch to GPF-Pension post-retirement on parity grounds despite 'irrevocable' option; denial discriminatory if others similarly situated benefited; limitation no bar for welfare pension schemes.

ORDER

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

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

“(i) Call for the original file(s) records of the 2 respondent’s authority relating to passing of the impugned memorandums bearing No.F.No.PFO30(ASO1)/2/2024- PF/Comp.No.22876/362, dated 02.02.2024 and quash the same as illegal nd

(ii) for a direction to the 2 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. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants are as follows:

The Applicant joined the services of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) as a Primary Teacher (PRT) on 24.08.1984 at Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 2, Golconda, Hyderabad Region, through the direct recruitment process. Her services as PRT were confirmed with effect from 24.08.1986. She became a member of the KVS Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme during the year 1985, in accordance with the then-existing policies of KVS, and her CPF Account Number is 473. The Applicant was promoted as Headmistress with effect from 16.08.2013 and superannuated from service on 31.12.2022. The 2nd 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. However, the Applicant continued to be covered under the CPF Scheme despite her repeated representations and requests, to which no response was given by the respondent authorities. The 2nd Respondent has extended the benefits of the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme to similarly and identically situated employees since 2017, pursuant to the intervention of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P. No. 19215/2015 and subsequent orders. The Applicant has been submitting representations from time to time since 24.07.1995, but none were replied to by the respondent authorities. Her latest representation dated 21.06.2022 also elicited no response. Consequently, the Applicant challenged the inaction of the respondents before this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1001/2022, which was disposed of by order dated 20.04.2023, directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 21.06.2022 and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of five months. In compliance with the said order, the 2nd Respondent extended GPF-cum- Pension benefits to another similarly placed employee on 25.01.2024, but issued the impugned memorandum rejecting the Applicant’s claim. The said rejection is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of 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 obligatio