Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

By way of the present petition, a challenge has been laid to the impugned judgment dated 28.04.2025, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in OA No.063/95/2021, whereby the claim of the present petitioner qua the grant of General Pension Scheme instead of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) has been rejected.

2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the written submission furnished by the writ petitioner.

3. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Primary Teacher in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) on 21.7.1983. The petitioner opted for the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme with CPF Account No. CEC 3477. Thereafter, in response to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Office Memorandum dated 1.9.1988, on exercise of option dated 27.2.1989, the petitioner continued in the CPF Scheme under a new Account Number 2853. The said account continued till his retirement i.e. 31.12.2014.

4. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the question which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner can be permitted to resile from the option earlier exercised on 27.02.1989.

5. The petitioner is not an illiterate person. The petitioner cannot contend ignorance of the rules and regulations of the department. If the petitioner had not opted for continuation of CPF as per OM dated 01.09.1988, then the petitioner should have objected to the same, when CPF contributions were being made in the monthly pay bills, which were duly reflected in Form No. 16 issued regularly.

6. The allotment of new CPF number, monthly salary bills containing deduction towards CPF, annual statements of every year regarding consolidated balance in CPF and Form 16 for filing income tax are pointers towards the fact that the petitioner was in the CPF Scheme and of his own volition enjoyed the accrued benefits of the CPF Scheme. The petitioner woke up after the lapse of a considerable period i.e. after his retirement, seeking to migrate to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme. The petitioner kept mum for a long time.

7. From the response filed to the writ petition, it is evident that admissible dues under the CPF Scheme stand paid to the petitioner on his retirement and CPF final payment papers have been signed by the petitioner. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances besides delay there is an acquiescence and waiver on the part of the petitioner.

8. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is evident that an option had been exercised by the petitioner to remain under the CPF Scheme, a fact which was disclosed before the Central Administrative Tribunal by the respondent by way of an application which has been placed on record as Annexure P-7 along with the writ petition. Hence it is evident that the petitioner post-retirement entered into a futile litigation being fully aware of the fact that he had exercised an option to remain in the CPF Scheme. However, the said fact was concealed by the petitioner.

9. The first Original Application bearing No. OA 063/000822/2018 was filed before the CAT, Chandigarh, which was disposed of vide order dated 09.08.2018 directing the respondents to take a decision qua the claim being made by the petitioner to shift from the CPF Scheme within a period of two months. Vide memorandum dated 10.10.2018, the said request was not accepted, thereafter the petitioner filed a fresh OA No. 63/95/2021. It is against the dismissal of the same that the present petition has been preferred. In both the petitions, material fact qua option having been exercised way back in 1989 by the petitioner to remain in the CPF Scheme has been concealed. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed with costs on account of material suppression of facts which has resulted in un-necessary wastage of judicial time and that of the respondents. However, we refra