BHARTI BAHUGUNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS has been alluded in the pleadings of the parties and documents placed on record, the facts of the case are that prior to 1986, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Employees had an option to become member of CPF Scheme or GPF cum Pension Scheme. All employees who joined the Sangathan on or after 1.1.1986 but before 1.1.2004 are governed under the GPF cum Pension Scheme. The employees who joined services on or after 1.1.2004 are covered under the new Pension Scheme. In terms of Office Memorandum No. 152/1/70 -80/KVS/Budget/Part -II dated 1.9.1988 (Annexure A -1), the persons who joined the services in the KVS on or after 1.1.1986 were to be governed only by the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme and had no option for CPF Scheme. Nevertheless, all the CPF beneficiaries in service as on 1.1.1986 and remained in service on the date of issue of the OM (ibid) were deemed to have come over to Pension Scheme. In terms of Para 3.2 of the OM, the employees of the category mentioned in Para 3 had an option to continue under the CPF Scheme, if they so desired. The option to such effect was to be exercised and dispono by the concerned Head Office/Principal by 31.1.1989, in duplicate, in the form enclosed with the OM. It was also stipulated in the OM/Scheme that in the event of non receipt of the option for CPF by the Head of Office/Principal by 31.1.1989 and in the office of the Sangathan (headquarter) by 28.2.1989, the concerned employees were to be deemed to have come under the Pension Scheme. Paras 3 to 3.3 of the OM read as under: -

(2.) IN rejoinder, learned Counsel for applicants referred to letter No. Pension/KV -2 DC (IInd Shift/2010 -11 dated 15.3.2011 (Page 40 of the paper book) vide which Principal KV No. 2, Delhi Cantt. New Delhi informed the Assistant Commissioner, KVS (Regional Office) that the applicant would proceed on superannuation/retirement and her pension papers were being processed. Mr. Atit Jain, Counsel for applicant who led the submission in rejoinder, pleaded that the applicant had no knowledge of the OM dated 1.9.1988 and could acquire the knowledge about the same only when she was posted at KV -1, G.C.F. Jabalpur between 28.1.2008 to 20.7.2010. He referred to enclosure to the representation dated 1.9.2011 addressed to the Commissioner, KVS (Page 46 of the paper book).

(3.) IN KVS and Others v. Jaspal Kaur and Another, : 2008 (1) SLJ 280 (SC) : (2007) 6 SCC 13), while reversing the decision of Central Administrative Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court viewed that the indication of CPF account number of the applicant in the passbook as well as the copy of income tax return mentioning deduction from pay and allowances for depositing in CPF confirmed the fact that the respondent was not pension optee. Hon'ble Supreme Court could also take into account the last pay certificate issued to respondent No. 1 indicating the CPF subscription of Rs. 130 as secondary evidence of the respondent being CPF optee. Paras 3 to 7 of the judgment read as under: