Tangirala Sreedevi, "W/o Late T. Vijaya v. 1. Union of lndia

Petition under p$ftn 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bi pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction particularly a Writ of Ceritiorary calling for the records connEcfii,ng to the Order dated. l{tOZtZOZ4 passed in O.A. No. 021t1485t2015 by Which the O.A. filed {'the petitioner was dismissed by the Central Administrertive Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and quash the same and consequrently allow the O.A. No. 021 1148512015 lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circu:nstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the responclents to pay the family pension to the petitioner for which she is entitled pending or disposal of writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI T P ACHARYA --- Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: SRI A. KRANTI KUMAR REDDY, (cENTRAL GOVT) (' Counsel for the Rerspondent No.4: SRI AJAY KUMAR KULKARN I /" Counsel for the Reispondent No. 5:--- The Court made the following: ORDER 'o THE HONtsLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KT'MAR SINGH A}ID THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHruDDIN WRIT PETITION No.29387 OF 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition assails the order dated l2-O2.2O24 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad, in O.A.No.2ll1485l2Ol5, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application filed by the late husband of the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner had filed the subject O.A. seeking a direction to the respondents to grant him one more opportunity to switch over from the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme to the General Provident Fund- cum-Pension (GPF-cum-Pension) Scheme.

2. Heard Sri T.P.Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri A.Kranti Kumar Reddy, learned counsel flor respondent Nos.l to 3 and Sri Ajay Kumar Kulkarni and learned counsel for rcspondent No.4. Factual Matrix (in brie0

3. The factual background, necessary for Lhe adjudication of the present u,rit petition, is as follows: i) Late T. Vrjaya Kumar (husband of the writ petitioner) was appointed as a Post Graduate Teacher in 2 Ken'Jriya vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) on 0[i.()g. i9g5 and was initialllz gor,,erned by the CpF Scheme; ii) f'ollowing the F.urth central pay conrrnission, the ()or",--p111v1cnt of Inriia issucd an office Mer-,.r,)randum on 01.C5. l98T (trx.p2), allo,uving a s,uvitch o,u,er to the GpF_ cum-Pension Scheme. Employees in service on 01.c1.i986 were creemed to have switchecr over to the GPF-cum-Pcnsion Scheme unless they specifically opted oul;.rnd dcsired to continue to be governeri by the cpF schrr:me by 3o.09. r9gr. The relevant portio. of the office Melnorandum is extracted as under: .'r.2 The emplol-ees of the catcgory mentione<l above will, l-owever, have an option to continue under the.CI)F Scheme, ii' the-v so desire' The option r,r,iil have to be excrcisecr ancr convc-yed to the concerned Head of Office by 30.09. l9g7 in tire forrn enclosed if the employees wish to continu,: uncler the (lPF Scheme. I[ no option is received by the Heacl of Office by t're abovr: date the ernployecs will be deemed 1o have come over to the Pension Scheme. ;.3. The CPF beneficiaries, r,r,ho were in service on l.l.19g6, brrl' have since retired and in rvhose case retirer,ent benefits hitve also been, paid under the CpF Scheme, rvill have an option to have their retirement benefits carcurated under the Pt:nsion Scheme pror,,ided they refund to the Gov,ernment, the Ciovernment contribution to the contributory provident Funcl and the interest thereon, drawn by them at the time, of settlement of the cpF Account. Such option shalr be exercised Itrtest b5, 30.09. I 987.

3.4. **** , ,,, / '4' .(1 aJ

3.5 ****

3.6 The option once exercised shall be final, iii) KVS adopted the schem e muta.tis mutand.is uid"e its Office Memorandum dated O 1.09.1988, extending the date of exercise option till 31.01.1989. iu) The husband of the petitioner consciously opted to continue under the CPF Scheme on O9.01. 1989 by submitting a signed option form dated 09.O 1.1989; vl 26 years later, in the year 2015, while still in service, the husband of the petitioner filed O.A.No.21 l1485l2015 before the CAT seeking "one more chance" to switch to the GP[r-cum-Pension Scheme, citing subsequent disparities in benefits; vi) The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed his O.A. on 12.02.2024, primarily on the grounds that he had exercised a conscious option which was final, and his claim for switch over cannot be allowed on account of inordinate delay and laches. vii) The husband of the petitioner expired on 15.01.2025. The petitioner now seeks family pension, which would be available, only if her husband was covered under the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme. The petitioner claims the benefit of family pension on the ground that the High Court of Delhi had held that similarly placed employees 4 r^rere entitled to the srvitch over of GpF-cum-pension Sche:me from CPF Scheme and that delery was not att re.cted on be i) The learncd counscl for the petitioner contends that the prcscr-rt case is squarely covered by the juclgment of the Deihi High Court in W.p.(C).No.3172 or 2OLg and batch datcd 02.o9.2025 (Ex.p-8). Learnecl counsel for the pctitioncr contends that the Delhi High court in the said r,r'ril petition has categorised the employees into three catcgories which are as follor.vs: I. Category A: Employees wlto had. not opted. to continue in the CPF Scheme during the prescribed period. of fi.ue rncntlts, that is, from O1.09.1988 to 3i.O1. jg?g, in terms c'J the KVS aM dated Ot.O9.19BB. II. Category B: Emplogees uho had. opted- tct <:ontinue tn the CPF Scheme during the said fiue-month pertod" frctm 01.09.1988 to 31.01.1989 and nou, want to stultch ouer to th e GPF-cum.- Pension Scheme. llt'. Category C: Emplogees tuho were d.irect aytpointees (or tulutse seruices were confi.rmed./ reguLarbed..) between 01.O1.1986 and 31.12.2003, when the CpF Scheme was not in operation The Delhi High court held that the s*'itch over for category B employees therein as in the present case is 5 (a^\ permissible and the claim is not barred by delay, laches or limitation ii) The learned counsel further contends that GPF-cum- Pension Scheme is a beneficial legislation intended for the post-retirement security of the employees and as such, a liberal compassionate view should be taken, especially considering the fact that the wife of the deceased, who is the petitioner in the present case, is a dependent widow' iii) The learned counsel contends that other similarll' placed KVS employees and the employees in other Government Departments have been granted the similar benefit of switching over from CPF Scheme' to GPF-cum- Pension Scheme. The denial of the same to the petitione r's husband would amount to arbitrary discrimination and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. iv) It is contended that right to pension is a continuing cause of action. The petitioner, as the widow, is now claiming a right to family pension, which is a recurring cause of action that arises each month, and as such the ground of delay is not attracted. 6 v) 'l'he petitioner is a 64 years old houser,,,,ife and will face se!'ore financiai hardship and irreparable loss if she is denied the family pension and prayed to ailow the switch over'(clecnrccl), of her husband from rhe cl)F to the GpF_ cutlr-Pension Scheme. Conte on behalf of the respondents Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, unlson, contendcd as under: i) The deceased emplo5zee made a conscious, informed and irre''zocable choice to remain under the cpt- scheme in 1989- The explicit terms of the office Mem.randum dated 01.05. 1987 clearly states that an option c)rrce exercised shail be fi.al. The cleceascd employee enjoye:cr the benefits of the CPF Scheme throughout his service and upon reti'ement; and the conversion from cpF to the GpF Pension Scheme at the belated stage is not possible. ii) The employee rvaited for over 25 years after exercising his option to remain under the cpF Scheme. The emp'loyee cannot be allowed to agitate the iss;ue to switch over from the CpF Scheme to the GFp c:um pension scheme after the inordinate and unexprainerl deray of over 25 5'ears. The unexprained and inordinate delay over 25 .1/' 7 years in itself is a sufficient ground to dismiss the pctition. iii) The reliance of the petitioner on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C). No. 3172 of 2019 and batch, is completely misplaced. The Delhi High Court in the above mentioned case allowed Category B claims, in a specific context and u'ith the crucial condition that employees must refund the employer's CPF contribution rvith interest. They contended that more importantly, each case must be decided on its own facts, and the principle of finality of option cannot be completely ignored. iv) Learned counsel for the respondents' contended that granting such belated claims, especially after the settlement of terminal benefits and the employee's demise, places an unjust and unanticipated financial burden on the exchequer and sets a dangerous precedent, opening floodgates for similar stale claims. v) The petitioner has no tegal right to demand a switch over from a scheme that her husband voluntarily chose and was governed by until his death. The consideration of the request for one more chance to convert from one 8 scheme to another is a matter of policy ancl not a legal entitlement.

4. we have given o,-lr anxious consiclerati..s to the submissions and perused the record, including the judgment in w.P.(C).No. 3 t72 of 2ot9 and batch of the Delhr [{igh courr. Analvsis end_Bgeqo nlpg :

5. The cornerstone of tlie scheme introducecl in t987-gg u,as the provision of a conscious choice to the er.plo,yees. The petitioner's husband consciously ancl voluntarily c:xercised his option in rtriting to continue under the cpF Scheme. The terms of the olTice Memorandum were clear and unanibiguous that the option was final. Having made a calculated choice and reaped thr: benefits of cPF Scheme throughout l-ris oareer and at the time of retirement, his legal representatives oannot norn, be permitted to resile from that position decades later. In this regard, the principle of estoppel and waiver squar-(:ly applies to the facts of this case.

5. The employee waited for over 25 years after cxercising his option and about two years prior to his retirement, raised this claim and prayed for one more option to su,itch over to other GPF-cum-Pension scheme, which he considerc,l beneficial. ,.) 9 This is clearly an afterthought. This delay of 25 years constitutes an inordinate and unexplained delay.

7. The doctrine of laches would apply to the present case. Granting relief in such a stale claim would set a dangerous precedent, unsettling Iong-closed financial . transactions and would open the flood gates of similar stale claims.

8. The petitioner's argument of continuing cause of action is completely misplaced. It is to be noted that in the present case, the cause of action, if any, arose in the year 1989 when the option was exercised and given effect by the employee. The subsequent deduction of the CPF was a consequence of the employee's otrr'n choice, not a "wrong." Further, the petitioner's reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in tlnion of India. &, Anr v. Tarsem Singht is distinguishable as that case involved a recurring non-payment of a benelit that was due, not a one-time, cclnscious selection between two distinct schemes as in the present case.

9. The petitioner's entire case rests on the erroneous assumption that her late husband's situation is squarely covered by the Judgment of the Delhi High Court in regard to the Category B claims. However, the present case is covered by the specific and binding law laid down by the Supreme Court in I lzooa; 8 scc 648 l0 Kendriga Vidgalaga Sangathan and others u. Jaspal Kaur and another2.

10. The -'udgment of Delhi High Court in W.p.(C) No. 3lT2 of 2019 and batch does not automerticalll, mand:rl,: that ever_\, single Catr:gory B claim must be allowed, irresltective of its unique facts. The decision highlights the importerncc of thc beneficial nature of the pension scheme but cannot be construed to obliterate the fundamental principles of finality, delay, and acquiescence. It.is trite larv that each r:ase must lte judged on its own facts. In the preserlt case, the cornbination of a conscious, final option and an inexplicable delal- of 26 years, distinguishes it from cases where employees ma]/ have pursued their clairns with more diligence.

11. The petitioner is essentially seeking to quash the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The dcc:ision of the Tribunal is based on the facts of delay ancl finality, is a plausible and legal one. The order of the CAT cloes not sufler from any perversity or error of law that u:arrants the interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

12. For the foregoing reasons, we find no mcrit in this Writ Petition. The order of the Tribunal is legal, just and equitable and does not call for any interference. The petitir>ner's reliance '(zoot)6scc lj l I : l ; i i ! r : i l! II :i I ,l I i i i I ) { !i !ii! !{ , I i, a & on the Delhi High Court judgment in W.P.(C).No. 3L72 of 2Ol9 and batch is insufficient to overcome the signifrcant hurdles of a conscious, final option exercised by the petitioner's husband and the inordinate and unexplained delay in the present case.

13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. . PONNA KRISHNA STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1l

1. One CC to SRl. T P ACHARYA, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRl. T. KRANTI KUtvlAR REDDY, (CENTRAL GOW) 3. One CC to SRI AJAY KU[\4AR KULKARNI, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies \ \ To, PVL .J W HIGH COURT DATED:1211112025 ORDER WP.No.29387 of 2025 +rt r'i '"4 fi1IJti M $\ l' ! U Y * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 6 a^ r\\