Background

The case involved five retired teachers who had served in Kendriya Vidyalayas in various areas of the KVS. Each teacher joined KVS before 1986 and retired after long years of service. In 1988, the Government of India issued an Office Memorandum (OM) directing all employees in service on January 1, 1986, to transfer to the GPF pension scheme unless they had explicitly chosen to remain affiliated to the CPF scheme. The deadline for deregistration was January 31, 1989. However, none of the teachers concerned had presented an option form to remain in the CPF system.

Despite this, KVS continued to treat teachers as CPF beneficiaries, crediting their contributions to CPF accounts and paying them CPF benefits upon retirement. The teachers then contacted the CAT, asserting that the automatic transition to the GPF regime, provided for in the OM of 1988, entitled them to GPF benefits. The CAT ruled in their favor, prompting the Union of India and the KVS to file writ petitions challenging the decision.

Arguments

The petitioners, represented by Mr. Su. Srinivasan and MM Vaidyanathan argued that the TASC applications were barred by time limits and limitations under section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, which imposes a one-year filing period after a final order. The petitioners argued that the teachers were late in seeking relief because they filed their claims in 2021 and 2022, well after they retired and received CPF benefits. Furthermore, they cited the fact that teachers continually received CPF benefits as evidence of an implicit choice to remain in the CPF regime.

In defense, Mr R. Arumugam, counsel for the respondents, argued that the 1988 MO provided for automatic inclusion in the GPF scheme unless employees exercised the option to remain in the CPF scheme, which the respondents did not do so. He stressed that the burden of implementing the automatic transition fell solely on the KVS, as employees did not control their CPF accounts or the allocation of contributions. According to him, the delay in contacting the CAT was justified by the constant representations that the teachers had made to the KVS to obtain a rectification of their status.

Court reasoning

The court began its analysis by examining the terms of the 1988 MO. It found that section 3 of the MO clearly required that employees in service on January 1, 1986 would automatically transfer to the GPF regime unless they chose to remain to the CPF by January. December 31, 1989. As the respondents did not exercise this option, they were deemed to be part of the GPF scheme. The court observed that the KVS’s treatment of the defendants as members of the CPF directly contradicted the explicit language of the OM. The court rejected the applicants’ reliance on the respondents’ CPF contributions and benefits as evidence of their intention to remain in the CPF scheme. It found that, to the extent that the KVS controlled service records, the mere fact of the defendants receiving CPF benefits did not constitute a voluntary or informed choice. The court emphasized that the KVS had failed in its duty of automatic transition, which was incumbent upon it under the 1988 OM.

Furthermore, addressing the limitation argument, the court referred to section 21(1)(b) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, which provides for a period of one year from the date of a final order or six months after a representation for the filing of applications. The court noted that the defendants had continually requested correction of their pension status through multiple representations to the KVS. She found that these representations were enough to extend the statute of limitations and that teachers should not suffer from the KVS’s inability to implement the transition, which made their CAT requests timely.

Finally, the court rejected the applicants’ recourse to previous decisions of the Supreme Court concerning the CPF and GPF schemes, in particular Jaspal Kaur v. Union of India (2010), where the employee actively agreed to stay at the CPF. The court observed that unlike Jaspal Kaurthere is no evidence that the people interviewed here ever chose to stay at CPF. Instead, KVS’s own records reflect Defendants’ continued efforts to assert their GPF rights, distinguishing this case from those cited by Petitioners. Thus, the court upheld the CAT’s orders directing the KVS to apply the GPF regime to the respondents. He ordered the KVS to make the transition within eight weeks and rejected the court requests.

Decided: 29-10-2024

Quote:2024:MHC:3651

Case Name: Union of India v. CVL Annapurna

Lawyer for the applicants: Mr. Su. Srinivasan, MM Vaidyanathan

Counsel for the respondents: MR Arumugam

Click here to read/download the order