- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants.
(3.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : Respondent No. 1 joined as a Primary School Teacher in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (for shor KVS ) on 20.07.1978. KVS is an autonomous body running schools all over the country. On 1.9.1988 the KVS issued Circular providing for the option to the KVS employees to switch over to GPF Scheme from the CPF Scheme. On 6.3.1989 KVS allotted account numbers in the CPF subscription in which the respondent No. l s name is at serial No. 8. This document shows that a number of employees opted for the benefit of CPF Scheme. On 6.7.1989 a new CPF account number was allotted to respondent No. 1 for having exercised the option to continue in the CPF Scheme. On 15.7.1989 revised CPF account which was allotted by letter dated 6.3.1989 was further changed vide O.M. dated 15.7.1989 in which also name of respondent No. 1 appeared at serial No. 8. On 15.3.1997 letter was received from respondent No. 1 stating that she had been continuing under CPF Scheme and it should be changed to GPF Scheme. In this letter respondent No. 1 stated that she had been contributed towards the CPF and the CPF account No. is JRC 1889. On 16.9.2002 respondent No. 1 made another representation to change from CPF Scheme to GPF Scheme. By letter dated 7.11.2002 Senior Audit and Accounts Officer rejected the representation for change from CPF Scheme to GPF Scheme. On 8.3.2004 an order was passed by KVS to the effect that respondent No. 1 was not entitled to claim benefit of GPF Scheme cum Pension Scheme as she had opted for CPF Scheme. She moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short the CAT ). CAT held that she was entitled to claim benefit of GPF Scheme cum Pension Scheme. The original application was allowed by CAT on the ground that the appellants did not produce direct evidence to show that respondent No. 1 had opted for the scheme and brushed aside the secondary evidence produced before it by the appellants to the effect that she had been continuing in the CPF Scheme and that she was allotted CPF account number. The CAT further held that respondent No. 1 was entitled to the benefit of GPF cum Pension Scheme on account of her being in service in KVS. Further direction was given to the effect that respondent No. 1 was entitled to get GPF Pension Scheme with effect from the due date with consequential benefits. Writ Petition filed before the High Court was dismissed on the sole ground that in spite of the number of opportunities given to the department no direct evidence was furnished. The High Court held that the option was to be exercised in writing and other materials produced were not sufficient to show that respondent No. 1 had exercised option.;