Employees’ GPF-cum-Pension claims must be decided under precedent, subject to the Supreme Court’s final outcome.

The applicants, comprising retired and senior employees of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), sought coverage under the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme and corresponding retirement benefits under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

They relied upon the Government of India Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 and the KVS Office Memorandum dated 01.09.1988, contending, inter alia, that certain applicants had not exercised an option to continue under the CPF Scheme during the prescribed period from 01.09.1988 to 31.01.1989 and had consequently shifted automatically to the GPF/Pension Scheme.

The applicants also relied upon a common representation dated 12.12.2025 seeking pensionary benefits, arrears and interest.

During the hearing, counsel for both sides agreed that the matter could be disposed of by directing KVS to consider and decide the applicants’ claims in light of the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Bharti Bahuguna v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 3172/2019 and connected matters, reported as 2025:DHC:7629-DB.

Whether the applicants’ claims for GPF-cum-Pension Scheme benefits were required to be considered in light of the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Bharti Bahuguna?

Whether the decision on the applicants’ claims should remain subject to the final outcome of the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court in relation to the said judgment?

Whether the Tribunal should itself grant the applicants pensionary benefits, arrears and interest, or instead direct the respondents to examine and decide their claims in accordance with law?

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the applicants invoked the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

It relied upon the Government of India Office Memorandum No. 4/1/87-PIC-I dated 01.05.1987 and the KVS Office Memorandum F.No.152-1/79-80/KVS/Budget/Part-II dated 01.09.1988 concerning migration from the CPF Scheme to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme.

The Tribunal followed the principles and categorisation adopted by the Delhi High Court in Bharti Bahuguna v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors., 2025:DHC:7629-DB, which identified: (i) employees who did not opt to continue under the CPF Scheme during the prescribed five-month period; (ii) employees who opted to continue under the CPF Scheme but subsequently sought migration to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme; and (iii) direct appointees, or employees whose services were confirmed or regularised, between 01.01.1986 and 31.12.2003, when the CPF Scheme was not in operation.

Since that judgment was pending challenge before the Supreme Court in Dy. No. 5044/2026, any administrative decision was required to remain subject to the Supreme Court’s final determination.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the applicants’ individual entitlement to pension on merits.

The applicants asserted that they fell within one of the categories recognised in Bharti Bahuguna, and this categorisation was stated to be undisputed between the parties.

In view of the pending Supreme Court proceedings, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to avoid issuing a final declaration granting pensionary benefits.

Instead, giving effect to the parties’ consensual submission, it directed the respondents to examine the applicants’ claims in accordance with law and with due regard to the Delhi High Court’s judgment.

The Tribunal further protected the position of the respondents and the pending appellate proceedings by making any decision in favour of the applicants subject to the Supreme Court’s final outcome.

Any decision taken in respect of the applicants was expressly made subject to the final outcome of the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court arising from that judgment, and the applicants were to abide by the Supreme Court’s final decision.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.