Bharti Bahuguna v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors

J U D G M E N T

SHALINDER KAUR, J.

¶1The 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, µ7UL EXQDO¶

, either allowing or dismissing the Original Applications µ2$¶

filed by the employees of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan µ.96¶

seeking grant of the

benefits under the General Provident Fund µ*3 F¶

-cum-Pension Scheme of the KVS.

¶2At 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

¶3The 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 3HQVL RQHUV¶ Welfare, for switch-over of employees from the Contributory Provident Fund

µ&3)¶

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

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: ³ 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 to 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.

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 to have their retirement benefits calculated under the Pension Scheme provided they refund to the Government, the 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. xxxxx

3.6 The option once exercised shall be final. xxxxx

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

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.´

¶4The 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: ³,Q the 51st Meeting of the Board of 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 the Govt. of India on the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission for its employees for the change over 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.

¶2It 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, the decision taken shall be Implemented in the manner hereinafter indicated.

¶3All 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.

3.2 The employees of the category mentioned above will, however, have an option to 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 Scheme. The Head of 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.

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 (Management Share) 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 31.1.1989. xxxxx

3.6 The Option once exercised shall be final. xxxxx

4.2 In the case of employees referred to above, who come over or are deemed to come over to the Pension Scheme, the Sangathan's contribution to the CPF together with the interest thereon credited to the CPF account of the employee will be resumed by the

Sangathan. The employees 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 6FK HPH´

¶5At 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 whose services were confirmed/regularised) between 01.01.1986 and

31.12.2003, when the CPF Scheme was not in operation.

¶6The learned Senior Counsel has also provided us with a list, splitting all the petitions in the present batch into the three categories

mentioned above, as under: Category 'A' Category 'B' Category 'C' W.P. (C) Nos. 3172/2019, 2113/2020, 9479/2020, 1440/2022, 10818/2022, 12211/2023, 748/2024, 766/2024, 11077/2020, 16726/2023,11465/2023, 10278/2020,13002/2021, 5718/2024, 9581/2024, 10032/2024, 50/2024 and Respondent Nos. 73 & 74 in W.P. (C) 14455/2021. W.P.(C) Nos. 2676/2020, 14455/2021, and Respondent Nos. 7, 9 and 11 in W.P.(C) No. 11077/2020 W.P.(C) Nos. 6557/2024, 8970/2024, 15137/2024, 10408/2020. 1373/2024 and 12991/2023

¶7The common grievance of the employees is that they seek retiral benefits under the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme instead of the CPF Scheme.

¶8Category 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.

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.

¶9It 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.

¶10The 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

¶11At 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

¶12The 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

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.

¶13The 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.

¶14The 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.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE KVS

¶15Per 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.

¶16It 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 HPSOR\HHV¶ claim 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.

¶17It 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.

¶18Regarding 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

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.

¶19For Category C employees, it was submitted that these employees, being either direct recruits or 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.

¶20The 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

¶21On 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.

¶22From the record, what emerges is that some of the employees

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.

¶23To 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.

¶24The 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

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 05.08.2025 Pronounced on: 02.09.2025 (1)+ W.P.(C) 3172/2019 BHARTI BAHUGUNA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S. Sunil, Adv. versus KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Singh and Ms. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS Ms. Shubhra Parashar and Mr. V. P. S. Charak, Advs. for UOI. (2)+ W.P.(C) 2113/2020 DURGA SHIVA KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Anirudh Gupta, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Singh and Ms. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS (3)+ W.P.(C) 2676/2020 & CM APPLs. 44100/2022 & 20317/2024 ANJALI DAS & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. K.K. Rai, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.K. Pandey, Mr. Anshul Rai, Ms. Sreshi Chatterjee, Mr. Rajan Parmar, Mr. Chandrasekhar A. Chaualabbi and Mr. Awanish Kumar, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Singh and Ms. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS Dr. Amar Nath Gupta and Mr. Santosh Kumar Sahu, Advs. for R-12, 14, 15 and 16. (4)+ W.P.(C) 9479/2020 & CM APPL. 30500/2020 KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Singh and Ms. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS versus MS. NISHA RANI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ravi Shankar Roy, Adv. (5)+ W.P.(C) 10278/2020 & CM APPL. 32534/2020 KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Singh and Ms. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS versus MS.RADHIKA JOSHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. N. P. Joshi, Adv. (6)+ W.P.(C) 11077/2020 & CM APPL. 34583/2020 KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Singh and Ms. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS versus 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. Singh and Ms. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS versus SMT. SAROJ SHARMA .....Respondent 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. Singh and Ms. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS Mr.Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr.Keshav Sehgal, Adv. for UOI Ms.Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, SPC with Ms.Usha Jamnal, Ms.Harshita Chaturvedi, Advs. for UOI. (9) + W.P.(C) 10408/2020 & CM APPL. 32971/2020 KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Singh and Ms. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS versus MADAN LAL PANERI .....Respondent Through: (10)+ W.P.(C) 748/2024 RITU SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Dr.Amar Nath Gupta and Mr.Santosh Kumar, Advs. versus THE COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Singh and Ms. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS (11)+ W.P.(C) 766/2024 VUTLA SUBBARAO .....Petitioner Through: Dr.Amar Nath Gupta and Mr.Santosh Kumar, Advs. versus THE COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Singh and Ms. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS (12)+ W.P.(C) 8970/2024 GURVINDER KAUR SANDHU .....Petitioner Through: Dr.Amar Nath Gupta and Mr.Santosh Kumar, Advs. versus THE COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. U. N. Singh, Mr. D. N. Singh and Ms. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS (13)+ W.P.(C) 14455/2021 MR. P. RAMACHANDRA REDDY & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Dr.Amar Nath Gupta and 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 and Ms. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS (14)+ W.P.(C) 1440/2022 BIJAY KUMAR JHA .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Abhishek Singh, Adv. versus THE COMMISSIONER KENDRIYA V