Mr. S. Sunil, Adv v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN ORS

MRS.SHRADHA KASHYAP AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Dr. Amar Nath Gupta and Mr. Santosh Kumar Sahu, Advs. (7)+ W.P.(C) 13002/2021 & CM APPL. 40981/2021 KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Sandhya and Ms. Singh Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS versus SMT. SAROJ SHARMA .....Respondent W.P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected matters Through: Mr.Suresh Sharma, Adv. (8)+ W.P.(C) 10818/2022 SMT. INDU WAHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Suresh Sharma, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents Through: Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Sandhya and Ms. Singh Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS Mr.Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr.Keshav Sehgal, Adv. for UOI Singh Ms.Avshreya Rudy, SPC with Ms.Usha Jamnal, Ms.Harshita Chaturvedi, Advs. for UOI. Pratap (9) + W.P.(C) 10408/2020 & CM APPL. 32971/2020 KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Sandhya and Ms. Singh Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS versus MADAN LAL PANERI .....Respondent Through: (10)+ W.P.(C) 748/2024 RITU SINGH Through: Dr.Amar Nath Gupta Mr.Santosh Kumar, Advs. .....Petitioner versus THE SANGATHAN & ORS. COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA .....Respondents Through: Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Sandhya and Ms. Singh Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS W.P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected matters (11)+ W.P.(C) 766/2024 VUTLA SUBBARAO Through: Dr.Amar Nath Gupta Mr.Santosh Kumar, Advs. .....Petitioner versus THE SANGATHAN & ORS. COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA .....Respondents Through: Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Sandhya and Ms. Singh Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS (12)+ W.P.(C) 8970/2024 GURVINDER KAUR SANDHU Through: Dr.Amar Nath Gupta Mr.Santosh Kumar, Advs. .....Petitioner versus THE SANGATHAN & ANR. COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA .....Respondents Through: Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Sandhya Singh Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS and Ms. (13)+ W.P.(C) 14455/2021 MR. P. RAMACHANDRA REDDY & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Dr.Amar Nath Gupta Mr.Santosh Kumar, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr.Kushagra Kumar, Mr.Amit Kr. Rana, Advs. for UOI. Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Singh Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS and Ms. (14)+ W.P.(C) 1440/2022 BIJAY KUMAR JHA .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Abhishek Singh, Adv. versus W.P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected matters THE SANGATHAN & ANR. COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA .....Respondents Through: Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Sandhya and Ms. Singh Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS (15)+ W.P.(C) 11465/2023 BHUPINDER JIT SODHI & ANR. Through: Dr.Amar Nath Gupta Mr.Santosh Kumar, Advs. .....Petitioners versus THE SANGATHAN & ANR. COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA .....Respondents Through: Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Sandhya and Ms. Singh Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS (16)+ W.P.(C) 50/2024 USHA CHOUDHARY .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Kripa Shankar Prasad and Mr.Harsh Jain, Advs. versus KENDRIYA VIDYALAY COMMISSIONER & ORS. SANGATHAN THROUGH .....Respondents Through: Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Sandhya and Ms. Singh Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS (17)+ W.P.(C) 12211/2023 SMT.RAKESH KUMARI .....Petitioner Through: Mr.G. Natarajan, Adv. versus COMMISSIONER THE SANGATHAN AND ANR. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA .....Respondents Through: Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Sandhya and Ms. Singh Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS (18)+ W.P.(C) 12991/2023 & CM APPL. 51223/2023 W.P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected matters CHANDRA CHOOR PANDEY .....Petitioner Through: Ms.Anubha Dhulia, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents Through: Ms.Nidhi Banga, SPC with Mr.Sandeep Chaudhary, Adv. for R-1/UOI. Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Singh Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS and Ms. (19)+ W.P.(C) 16726/2023 ALOK KUMAR SHARMA & ANR. Through: Dr.Amar Nath Gupta Mr.Santosh Kumar, Advs. .....Petitioners versus THE SANGATHAN & ORS. COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA .....Respondents Through: Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Sandhya and Ms. Singh Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS Mr. N. K. Bhatnagar, Mr. Arkam Khan Ms.Tanushree Khandelwal, Advs. (20)+ W.P.(C) 1373/2024 AMIN UDDIN KHAN AND ANOTHER .....Petitioners Through: Ms.Anubha Dhulia, Adv. versus THE SANGATHAN AND ANR COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA .....Respondents Through: Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Sandhya Singh Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS and Ms. (21)+ W.P.(C) 5718/2024 USHA KIRAN DHAMIJA .....Petitioner Through: Dr.Amar Nath Gupta and W.P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected matters Mr.Santosh Kumar, Advs. versus COMMISSIONER SANGATHAN & ANR. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA .....Respondents Through: Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Sandhya Singh Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS and Ms. (22)+ W.P.(C) 10032/2024 M. SAROJINI NANCY BALA & ORS. Through: Dr.Amar Nath Gupta Mr.Santosh Kumar, Advs. .....Petitioners KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ORS. versus .....Respondents Through: Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Sandhya and Ms. Singh Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS Mr.Naginder Benipal, SPC with Siwach, Mr.Udit Mr.Ankit Vaghela and Mr.Arjun Baliyan, Advs. (23)+ W.P.(C) 6557/2024 ANKARAJU SAVITHRI DEVI Through: Dr.Amar Nath Gupta Mr.Santosh Kumar, Advs. .....Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Kshitij Chhabra, SPC with Mr.Kamaldeep, Adv. Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Sandhya Singh Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS and Ms. (24)+ W.P.(C) 9581/2024 & CM APPL. 39347/2024 SMT KRISHNA DAS & ORS. Through: Dr.Amar Nath Gupta .....Petitioners W.P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected matters Mr.Santosh Kumar, Advs. versus THE SANGATHAN & ORS. COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA .....Respondents Through: Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Sandhya and Ms. Singh Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS (25)+ W.P.(C) 15137/2024 & CM APPL. 63528/2024 KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN THROUGH ITS .....Petitioner COMMISSIONER Through: Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Sandhya Singh Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS and Ms. versus DIVYA TIWARI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Dr.Amar Nath Gupta and Mr.Santosh Kumar Sahu, Advs. Mr.Abhishek Tyagi and Mr.Rajiv Mitra, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR J U D G M E N T SHALINDER KAUR, J.

1. The present batch of Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have been filed to assail the final Orders passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, (cid:181)(cid:55)(cid:85)(cid:76) (cid:69)(cid:88)(cid:81)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:182)(cid:12) , either allowing or dismissing the Original Applications (cid:11)(cid:181)(cid:50)(cid:36)(cid:182)(cid:12) filed by the employees of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (cid:11)(cid:181)(cid:46)(cid:57)(cid:54)(cid:182)(cid:12) seeking grant of the W.P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected matters benefits under the General Provident Fund (cid:11)(cid:181)(cid:42)(cid:51)F(cid:182)(cid:12)-cum-Pension Scheme of the KVS. 2. At the outset, we may note that the batch of petitions involve similar issues of law and arise from a common bundle of facts, though the dates of joining, retirement and nature of appointment are different, therefore, it is deemed appropriate to adjudicate them vide this common Judgment. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. The brief factual matrix, so far as is relevant to the present petitions, is that pursuant to the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission (CPC), Office Memorandum dated

01.05.1987 was issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Department of Pensions and (cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:86)(cid:76) (cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:182) Welfare, for switch-over of employees from the Contributory Provident Fund (cid:11)(cid:181)(cid:38)(cid:51)(cid:41)(cid:182)(cid:12) Scheme to the Pension Scheme, according to which all CPF beneficiaries who were in service of the Central Government on

01.01.1986 and continue to remain in service, were deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme unless, on or before 30.09.1987, they specifically opted to continue under the CPF Scheme. It was further stipulated that the CPF beneficiaries, who were in service on

01.01.1986 but have since retired and in whose case retirement benefits have also been paid under the CPF Scheme, will have an option to have their retirement benefits calculated under the Pension Scheme provided they opt for the same latest by 30.09.1987 and refund to the Government, the Government contribution to the W.P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected matters Contributory Provident Fund and the interest thereon, drawn by them at the time of settlement of the CPF Account. It was stipulated that the option once exercised, shall be final. The relevant extract from the said OM is as under: (cid:179)(cid:22)(cid:17) All CPF beneficiaries, who were in service on 1.1.1986 and who are still in service on the date of issue of these orders will be deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme.

3.2. The employees of the category mentioned above will, however, have an option continue under the CPF Scheme, if they so desire. The option will have to be exercised and conveyed to the concerned Head of Office by 30.09.1987 in the form enclosed if the employees wish to continue under the CPF Scheme. If no option is received by the Head of Office by the above date the employees will be deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme. to have

3.3. The CPF beneficiaries, who were in service on 1.1.1986 but have since retired and in whose case retirement benefits have also been paid under the CPF Scheme, will have an option their retirement benefits calculated under the Pension Scheme provided Government contribution to the Contributory Provident Fund and the interest thereon, drawn by them at the time of settlement of the CPF Account. Such option shall be exercised latest by 30.09.1987. the Government, refund

3.6 The option once exercised shall be final.

4.2 In the case of employees referred to above, who come over or are deemed to come over to the Pension Scheme, the Government's contribution to the CPF together with the interest thereon credited to the CPF Account W.P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected matters of the employee will be resumed by the Government. The employees contribution together with the interest thereon at his credit in the CPF Account will be transferred to the GPF Account to be allotted to him on his coming over to the Pension Scheme.(cid:180)

4. The KVS adopted the said OM dated 01.05.1987 vide OM No. 152-1/79-80/KVS/Budget/Part II dated 01.09.1988 and decided to implement it mutatis mutandis, except that the date of giving the option was stipulated as 31.01.1989. The relevant portions of the KVS OM dated 01.09.1988 reads as under: the Govt. of the 51st Meeting of the Board of (cid:179)(cid:44)(cid:81) Governors of the Kendriya Vidyaiaya Sangathan heid on 31st May, 1988, it was approved that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan will, implement mutatis-mutandis the decision taken by recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission for its employees for the change from Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to Pension Scheme in the manner as indicated in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Deptt. Of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare) O.M. No. 4/1/87- PIC dated 1.5.1987. India on

2. It has, accordingly, been decided that persons joining service in the Sangathan on or after 1.1.1986 shall be governed only by the G.P.F.-cum-Pension Scheme and will have no option for C.P.F. Scheme. However, for all CPF beneficiaries, who were in service on 1.1.1986, shall be the manner hereinafter Implemented indicated. the decision

3. All C.P.F. beneficiaries, who were in service on 1.1.1986 and who are still in service on the date of issue of these orders will be deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme. W.P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected matters

3.2 The employees of the category mentioned above will, however, have an option continue under the CPF Scheme, if they so desired. The option will have to be exercised and conveyed to the concerned Head of office/Principal by 31.1.1989. In duplicate, in the form enclosed (one form may be sent to this office while the other kept with personal records of the employee concerned) if the employees wish to continue under the CPF Scheme. If no option is received by the Head of Office/Principal by the above date and in this office through them by 28.2.1989 the employees will be deemed to have come over the Pension Office/Principals are to forward in one lot options exercised by employees for retention of CPF Scheme received by them, to reach Sangathan's Office latest by 28.2.1989, where no option to continue under the CPF Scheme is received by them from any, a nil report be sent by due date viz. 28.2.1989. Scheme. The Head

3.3 The C.P.F beneficiaries, who were in service-on 1.1.1986, but. haye since retired and in whose case retirement benefits have also been paid under the C.P.F Scheme, will have option to have their retirement benefits calculated under the Pension Scheme provided they refund to the Sangathan, the Sangathan contribution Contributory Provident Fund and the interest thereon, drawn by them at the time of settlement of the CPF account. Such option shall be exercised latest by 31.1.1989. (Management Share)

3.6 The Option once exercised shall be final.

4.2 In the case of employees referred to above, who come over or are deemed to come over to Sangathan's the Pension contribution to the CPF together with the interest thereon credited to the CPF account of the employee will be resumed by the Scheme, W.P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected matters employees Sangathan. The contribution together with the interest thereon at his credit in the CPF account will be transferred to the CPF account, to be allotted to him on his coming over to the Pension (cid:54)(cid:70)(cid:75) (cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:72)(cid:17)(cid:180)

5. At this stage, it would be relevant to note that Mr. K. K. Rai, learned Senior Counsel for some of the employees of the KVS, pursuant to our Order dated 14.07.2025, furnished consolidated written submissions on behalf of the employees, and submitted that all the writ petitions can be categorized into three categories, which are as follows: I. Category A: Employees who had not opted to continue in the CPF Scheme during the prescribed period of five months, that is, from 01.09.1988 to

31.01.1989, in terms of the KVS OM dated

01.09.1988. II. Category B: Employees who had opted to continue in the CPF Scheme during the said five-month period from 01.09.1988 to 31.01.1989 and now want to switch over to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme. III. Category C: Employees who were direct appointees (or services confirmed/regularised) between 01.01.1986 and

31.12.2003, when the CPF Scheme was not in operation.

6. The learned Senior Counsel has also provided us with a list, splitting all the petitions in the present batch into the three categories W.P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected matters mentioned above, as under: Category 'A' Category 'B' Category 'C' W.P. (C) Nos. 3172/2019, W.P.(C) Nos. W.P.(C) Nos. 6557/2024, 2113/2020, 9479/2020, 2676/2020, 8970/2024, 15137/2024, 1440/2022, 10818/2022, 14455/2021, and 10408/2020. 1373/2024 12211/2023, 748/2024, Respondent 766/2024, 11077/2020, Nos. 7, 9 and 11 16726/2023,11465/2023, in W.P.(C) 10278/2020,13002/2021, No. 11077/2020 5718/2024, 9581/2024, 10032/2024, 50/2024 and Respondent Nos. 73 & 74 in W.P. (C) 14455/2021.

7. The common grievance of the employees is that they seek retiral benefits under the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme instead of the CPF Scheme. 8. Category A employees claim that they are eligible for the benefits under the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme as they never opted to remain in the CPF Scheme and, therefore, automatically came over to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme as per the deeming provision under paragraph 3.2 of the OM dated 01.09.1988. Category B employees claim that though they had initially opted to continue under the CPF Scheme during the prescribed period, they should be entitled to switch over to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme, based on principles of parity and equality, as similar opportunities had been granted to employees in other organizations as also KVS employees in other States. W.P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected matters Category C employees claim that as per paragraph 2 of the OM dated

01.09.1988, persons joining service in the KVS on or after 01.01.1986 shall be governed only by the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme and will have no option for the CPF Scheme, therefore, since they were borne in service post the cut-off date, they would automatically come under the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme. 9. It is the case of the employees that in this regard, they requested the KVS to consider them under the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme and also submitted representations for the same, which were, however, rejected, prompting them to approach the learned Tribunal. 10. The learned Tribunal was pleased to allow some OAs and dismiss the others. Accordingly, the KVS has filed Writ Petitions against the former, while the employees have filed Writ Petitions against the latter. DELAY AND LACHES

11. At the outset, we deem it appropriate to first address the common preliminary objection of delay and laches raised by the KVS across all categories. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE KVS

12. The learned counsel for the KVS submitted that the present batch of petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It was submitted that the actual cause of action arose way back in the year 1989, when the employees were asked to submit their option forms in terms of the KVS OM dated 01.09.1988. He W.P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected matters submitted that thus, the employees could not have approached the learned Tribunal or this Court at such a belated stage to voice their grievances, particularly when in some of the cases, the petitions have been filed many years after retirement, which is not permissible in law. 13. The learned counsel vociferously urged that the employees have no right to receive the benefits under the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme by claiming that the said right is a continuous cause of action. It was submitted that even if it is assumed that the KVS had allowed them to make payments under the CPF Scheme despite not having opted for the same, the employees could have raised their grievances within a year from when the OM dated 01.09.1988 came into effect, that is, the period of limitation prescribed for filing an OA, and not beyond that. 14. The learned counsel further submitted that the present petitions are squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in DTC v. Madhu Bhushan Anand, 2010 (172) DLT 668, and the employees have filed the present petitions belatedly, without any explanation for the delay and laches in approaching the learned Tribunal and, hence, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, and of this Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Manju Sehgal, 2021:DHC:937-DB, and of the High Court of Kerala in M.R. Indira v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 11465. W.P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected matters SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE KVS 15. Per contra, the learned counsels for employees submitted that the right to pension, being a fundamental right, could not be circumscribed by taking recourse to the plea of delay and laches. Reliance was placed on the judgment dated 17.01.2019 of Bombay High Court in W.P No. 1331/2017, titled Amita Ajit Desai & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 16. It was also submitted that insofar as the right to pension is concerned, the cause of action is of a continuing nature and, therefore, the plea of limitation would not arise. Hence, the (cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:83)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:92)(cid:72)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:182) cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648. 17. It was further submitted that the reliance of the KVS on the case of M. K. Sarkar (supra) is misplaced as the facts of the said case did not include any deeming provision, which was available in the present batch of petitions. The learned counsels submitted that in the present case, a legal fiction was created by the OM whereby employees were automatically deemed to have come over to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme unless they consciously opted otherwise, and the operation of such legal fiction cannot be negated by subsequent conduct or delay in asserting rights. 18. Regarding Category B employees, the learned counsels further submitted that even employees who had initially opted for CPF Scheme, should be entitled to switch over to GPF-cum-Pension W.P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected matters Scheme based on the principle of parity and equality, as similar opportunities had been granted to employees in other organizations as also to KVS employees by other High Courts and affirmed by the Supreme Court. It was submitted that delay cannot be a ground to deny such beneficial schemes when the purpose is employee welfare. 19. For Category C employees, it was submitted that these employees, either direct recruits employees joining/regularized after 01.01.1986, were mandatorily to be governed only by the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme as per clause 2 of the KVS OM dated 01.09.1988, and therefore any delay in claiming their rightful benefits cannot prejudice their statutory entitlement. 20. The learned counsels submitted that in these peculiar facts and circumstances of the present petitions, employees cannot be denied their valuable right to claim benefit under the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme after retirement. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 21. On due consideration of the above submissions, it may be noted that the doctrine of delay and laches prevents the grant of relief when the delay is unreasonable and causes unfair prejudice to the opposite side. Laches is an equitable concept that considers the consequence of delay. Thus, in the present batch of petitions, the length of delay and the nature of the acts done during the course of delay that might affect rights of either party are to be considered before exercising the discretion in favour of the party that belatedly approached the Tribunal. 22. From the record, what emerges is that some of the employees W.P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected matters had filed representations before the KVS to claim benefit of the GPF- cum-Pension Scheme prior to their retirement, while others filed representations thereafter. Undoubtedly, there is delay in the filing of the OAs before the learned Tribunal in most cases, however, we have to remain conscious of the fact that employees herein are litigating to claim financial benefits arising out of the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme, which was a beneficial scheme intended for employee welfare. 23. To appreciate the legal context, it is pertinent to note that the Government of India, through OM dated 01.05.1987, introduced a paradigm shift in the pension system for Central Government employees. The OM was issued to implement the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission, which had recommended that all CPF beneficiaries in service as on 01.01.1986 would henceforth be deemed to be covered under the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme from that date, unless they submitted a specific option to continue under the CPF Scheme within the prescribed time limit. The KVS adopted this OM mutatis mutandis through its OM dated 01.09.1988, extending the cut-off date to 31.01.1989 for its employees. 24. The Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. S.L. Verma & Ors., (2006) 12 SCC 53, while dealing with similar issues, held that by reason of the OM dated 01.05.1987, a legal fiction was created. The Court observed that only when an employee consciously opted to continue with the CPF Scheme, such employee would not become a member of the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme. Once employees became members of the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme by virtue of this legal fiction, they would be deemed to have come over to the pension W.P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected matters scheme, which a fortiori would mean that they no longer remained in the CPF scheme, regardless of subsequent contributions made by them or their employer. 25. More recently, the Supreme Court in University of Delhi v. Smt. Shashi Kiran & Ors., (2022) 15 SCC 325, dealt with a comprehensive batch of cases involving three distinct categories of employees: (i) employees who had not exercised any option at all (the R.N. Virmani batch - analogous to Category (A) in the present case; (ii) employees who had not exercised their option by the cut-off date but had exercised the option during extensions; and (iii) employees who had consciously opted for CPF but later sought to switch over (the Shashi Kiran batch - analogous to Category (B) of the present case. The Court categorically held that switch over from the CPF Scheme to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme shall be permissible in all these categories, and that such claims would not be barred by delay, laches, or limitation. 26. In this context, we may note that the learned Single Judge of this Court, in R.N. Virmani & Ors. v. University of Delhi & Anr., 2014:DHC:2285, while dealing with employees who had not exercised any option at all, rejected the objection of delay and laches, holding that the right to pension constitutes a continuing cause of action, placing reliance on Tarsem Singh (supra). The said view of the learned Single Judge, in fact, now stands affirmed by the Supreme Court in Shashi Kiran (supra), as noted hereinabove. 27. Accordingly, the objection raised by the KVS on the ground of delay and laches cannot be sustained. As clarified in Shashi Kiran W.P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected matters (supra), even where an employee had availed of the CPF benefits, that by itself cannot operate as a bar to his entitlement under the GPF- cum-Pension Scheme. Such employees are to be treated as (cid:181)deemed pension optees(cid:182) in terms of KVS OM dated 01.09.1988. The only requirement in such a case, as held by this Court in Delhi Transport Corporation v. Anil Luthra, 2025:DHC:1700-DB, would be for the employee to refund the CPF benefits so availed by him at the time of his retirement, along with interest. 28. In this regard, it is apposite to note the observations of Shashi Kiran (supra), which are as follows: to be (cid:179)51. According to the Notification dated 1-5- 1987, the employees joining the service after 1-1- 1986 would always be under GPF. With respect to those who were in service on 1-1-1986, said employees would be deemed to have (cid:179)(cid:70)ome (cid:82)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:180) to GPF unless an option to continue to be under CPF was consciously exercised before the cut-off date. Thus, when the Scheme was framed and was sought the authorities implemented, concerned must have taken into account the entire magnitude such as, the number of employees and the likelihood of impact on the management of the fund, so that reasonable returns can be effected by way of pension upon retirement of such persons. Going by the intent of the notification, those who were to opt for CPF, were an exception and the general rule was that everybody after 1-1-1986 would normally be covered by GPF. It is in this context that the number of original petitioners in Shashi Kiran batch of cases has to be seen. We are concerned with only 75 persons. On the other hand, the bulk of people, namely, 2469 employees were granted the choice of reverse switch over and they were allowed all the benefits under GPF. It can reasonably be said that when the Notification dated 1-5-1987 was issued, the authorities were W.P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected matters conscious of the possibility that all the employees may (cid:179)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:80)(cid:72) (cid:82)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:180) to GPF. With that possibility in mind, the fund was constituted and the affairs were arranged. The shift of those 75 employees would not in any way affect the strength and the character of the fund if a direction that the entire contribution made by the authorities be returned with reasonable rate of interest is issued. These 75 petitioners had approached the Court in the year 2010. At this length of time, it is not as if any floodgates are going to open and there will be drain on the resources of the State. A direction can, therefore, be issued, as was done by the learned Single Judge in para 20 of his judgment in R.N. Virmani [R.N. Virmani v. University of Delhi, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2799] batch of cases and which aspect was mentioned the Letter dated 23-1-2017 referred in para 31.4 hereinabove, for recouping the contribution under CPF with 8% simple interest per annum. for recouping of

52. Considering the circumstances on record, in our view, the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court in Shashi batch of cases does not call for any interference except to the extent of direction contribution under CPF with 8% simple interest per annum. It is possible that at this length of time, some of the employees in Shashi Kiran batch of cases may not be interested in switch over to GPF. But an option must be afforded to them in such manner as the authorities deem a(cid:83)(cid:83)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:83)(cid:85)(cid:76) (cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:17)(cid:180) (Emphasis Supplied)

29. The decision of Shashi Kiran (supra) has also been consistently followed by various High Courts. The Rajasthan High Court, in its decision dated 27.07.2023 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16675/2022, titled The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. v. Mrs. Gurmail Kaur, dealt with KVS employees W.P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected matters in similar circumstances and held that switch over from CPF to GPF- cum-Pension Scheme should be permitted. Similarly, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in Ram Dayal v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 3299, allowed similar claims of KVS employees. Significantly, the Special Leave Petitions filed against both these decisions have been dismissed by the Supreme Court, thereby affirming the legal position. 30. More so, it is undisputed that certain employees made representations to the KVS before their superannuation, seeking the benefits under the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme, therefore, their claims cannot be brushed aside on the ground of delay and laches. 31. In this backdrop, we may note the observations of the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Namrata Semwal, 2024:DHC:2896-DB, reading thus: though, learned counsel the aforesaid extracts of (cid:179)(cid:26). From impugned order, it clearly emerges that on the one hand, there is no option of the respondent for being covered under the CPF Scheme after 01.09.1988 available and on the other hand, there are representations made by her right from 1993 requesting the petitioners to include her name under the GPF (Pension) Scheme. Even petitioners is correct in urging that as held in Jaspal Kaur (supra), the mere absence of the option form on the record may not always be fatal, as an inference can also be drawn from including payslips, the fact remains that the respondent had all along been representing for including her name under the GPF (Pension) Scheme as per OM dated 01.09.1988. In the light of this distinguishing factors, where representations were being all along made by the respondent contemporary documents W.P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected matters case. There for being included under the GPF (Pension) Scheme, the ratio of the decision in Jaspal Kaur (supra) would not be applicable to the present is absolutely no explanation by the petitioners as to why those representations submitted in 1993 and 1994 were not rejected if any such option to be governed by the CPF Scheme was available in the records of the (cid:83)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76) (cid:87)(cid:76) (cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:17)(cid:180)

32. Furthermore, judgment dated 29.10.2024 in W.P. 20091/2022, titled Union of India & Ors. v. C.V.L. Annapurna, the High Court of Madras held as under: (cid:23)(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:3) (cid:171)(cid:55)(cid:75) (cid:72)(cid:3) (cid:74)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:3) (cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:76) (cid:87)(cid:76) (cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3) (cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3) (cid:68)(cid:3) (cid:86)(cid:76) (cid:87)(cid:88)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:76) (cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3) (cid:86)(cid:88)(cid:70)(cid:75) (cid:3) as present cannot lose sight of. The private respondents are all in service and have been making representations before the employer regularly. As we have already indicated, it was unnecessary to even require them to make representations as their very O.M. dated requires Kendriya Vidyalaya 01.09.1988 Sangathan to effect transition to the GPF Scheme. This has not been done in the case of the private respondents.

42. Hence, for a default committed by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, the employees cannot suffer to say that their representations and the institution of the applications before the CAT were hit by the bar of limitation. This submission does not appeal to us at all. Hence we find that the ratio of the decisions cited by Mr.Srinivasan, are entirely distinguishable as on the facts of those cases and the facts and legalities of the present matter.

43. At the risk of repetition, we must reiterate that O.M.dated 01.09.1988 was by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan itself putting into motion a scheme of transition from CPF to GPF and providing expressly that it is only the option had been exercised continuance that the employees would be W.P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected matters