KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN 18 v. LOVELY THOMAS

MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * R.P.No.1099 of 2012 in O.P.(CAT) No.956 of 2012 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 29th day of November 2012

O R D E R MANJULA CHELLUR,CJHeard review petitioners as well as respondent.

The present review petitioners, aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam inO.A.No.297 of 2011, filed O.P.(CAT) No.956 of 2012 on the ground that the employees of Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathanwere given an opportunity to exercise fresh option indicating whether they intend to continue in the Contributory PensionFund (CPF) Scheme if they so desire and failing which they will be covered under General Provident Fund (GPF) Scheme.

According to respondent/applicant, before the Tribunal she did not opt out any option subsequent to01/01/1986 and therefore, as per the terms indicated in the letter of the employer, she must be allowed to be covered underGPF pension Scheme. R.P.No.1099/2012 in 2O.P.(CAT) No.956/20124.At the time of disposal of the matter, several times, it was pointed out to learned counsel for the petitioner whether there is any material indicating her specific option for CPF or not. No material came to be produced before us. Therefore, we proceeded that a presumption could be raised that she did not give any option and therefore she is entitled to continue underGPF scheme. In view of her categoric denial of exercising such option, we opined that she is entitled for GPF scheme, that was applicable prior to introduction of new scheme.

Now, subsequent to the disposal of the original petition, copy of the option form signed by the respondent is produced and according to the petitioner the document could not be produced due to their inability to trace out the form of option from the concerned Kendriya Vidyalaya as she was working at Guwahati at the relevant point of time and later she was transferred to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Cochin. There is no denial of this option being exercised as per the format now produced. There is a clear indication that a Contributory Provident FundAccount Number is also allotted to the respondent/applicant and she wants to continue under the CPF scheme. In view of her R.P.No.1099/2012 in 3O.P.(CAT) No.956/2012clear voluntary intention to continue under the CPF scheme, employer was justified in his present stand.

In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, the consistent stand of the petitioners/employer that she is entitled for CPF scheme benefits alone and not GPF pension scheme is justified. Hence, we review the judgment dated 07/09/2012 allowingO.P.(CAT) No.956/2012 setting aside the orders of CentralAdministrative Tribunal in O.A.No.297/2011.(sd/-) (MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE)(sd/-)(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)jsr29/11/2012 R.P.No.1099/2012 in 4O.P.(CAT) No.956/2012 R.P.No.1099/2012 in 5O.P.(CAT) No.956/2012