Order

1. Learned counsel for both the parties submit that the controversy pertaining to the policy with regard to those of the employees at the relevant time, who did not opt for GPFS or opted to remain in CPFS and if they did not make any option, they would automatically deem to be opting GPFS, has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment of University of Delhi vs. Shashi Kiran & Ors. reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 594. The relevant part of Shashi Kiran (supra) judgment reads as follows-

“4. In these circumstances, Writ Petitions were filed in the High Court claiming diverse reliefs. These petitions, by order dated 21.05.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, were categorized into three categories.

a. Employees who had exercised any option at all and thus by virtue of the deeming provisions contemplated in the notification dated 01.05.1987, were deemed to have "come over" to GPF; but having continued to make contributions under the old CPF scheme were being treated to be under CPF. This batch was subsequently referred to as "R.N. Virmani batch of cases" in the decisions rendered by the High Court.

b. Employees who had not exercised the option by the cutoff date contemplated under the notification dated 01.05.1987 and were thus deemed to have come over" to GPF; however, such employees had exercised the option to remain under CPF scheme during first two extensions granted by the University between 01.10.1987 to 29.02.1988; and were now praying that they be allowed to be under GPF. This batch of cases was described to be "N.C. Bakshi batch of cases in the decisions rendered by the High Court.

c. Employees who had exercised positive option by 30.09.1987 i.e. by the original coutoff date contemplated under notification dated 1.5.1987 and had chosen to remain under CPF Scheme; but were now demanding that they be given further option and were therefore praying for extension of the cut-off date to enable them to “come over" to GPF. This group of matters was referred to as "Shashi Kiran" batch of cases" in the decisions rendered by the High Court.

5. Thus, the employees in all three batches of cases desired to be under GPF rather than under CPF and were therefore praying for a chance to facilitate such switchover. The reason for such attempts was spelt out with clarity in one of the letters addressed."

2. Thus, broadly the issue seems to be governed by the judgment passed in Shashi Kiran (supra). While number of cases were being decided in light of Shashi Kiran (supra) learned counsel submits that currently in the matter of Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan vs. Malathy Pisharasyar N.S & Ors. in SLP (Civil) Diary No.42885/20225 the Hon’ble Apex Court while keeping into consideration Shashi Kiran (supra) and KVS & Ors. vs. Jaspal Kaur (2007 (6) SCC 13), has passed an interim order staying the operation of the impugned order. The order of the Hon’ble Apex Court reads as under:-

“1. Delay condoned.

2. These are five matters where the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (for short ‘KVS’) is the petitioner. Diary No.42885/2025 (KVS vs. Malathy Pisharasyar N.S.& Ors.), Diary No.43413/2025 (KVS vs. N.Alima Beevi & Ors.) & Diary No.43439/2025 (KVS vs. M.R.Indira & Ors.) are from Kerala. In all three matters, the High Court has allowed the review, recalled its earlier judgment and set down the matters for hearing.

3. Diary Nos.36684/2025 (KVS & Ors. vs. Usha Bakshi) and Diary No.23876/2025 (KVS & Anr. vs. Hari Om Verma) are from Rajasthan. In the said matters final relief have been given to the respondents applying the judgment of this Court in the University of Delhi vs. Shashi Kiran (2022 SCC OnLine SC 593).

4. The issue involved in these matters is when employees have exercised option to come under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme(CPFS) whether they can seek to resile from the option and avail coverage under General Provident Fund Scheme (GPFS).

5. According to Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, learned