Fresh KVS appointees after 1 January 1986 are mandatorily governed by the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme.

The applicant initially joined the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) as an Upper Division Clerk on 04.11.1980. He was thereafter issued a fresh appointment order for the post of Audit Assistant on 16.10.1987 and joined that post on 02.12.1987.

At the time of joining as Audit Assistant, he was placed under the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme. The applicant contended that his appointment was through direct recruitment and, being after 01.01.1986, he was mandatorily governed by the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme under KVS Office Memorandum dated 01.09.1988.

The applicant sought conversion from CPF to GPF-cum-Pension through representations submitted from 2011 onwards.

His request was rejected by orders dated 12.12.2018 and 16/17.01.2019, which he challenged under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Whether the applicant’s appointment as Audit Assistant in 1987 was a fresh appointment through direct recruitment or merely a promotion through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination?

Whether an employee freshly appointed to KVS after 01.01.1986 could legally be governed by the CPF Scheme despite the KVS Office Memorandum dated 01.09.1988 mandating coverage under the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme?

Whether the applicant’s delayed claim was barred by limitation, waiver, acquiescence or his alleged conscious exercise of an option to remain under CPF?

Whether denial of conversion to the applicant, while granting similar relief to another employee, violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution?

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, governing the applicant’s challenge to the impugned service orders.

It relied on the Government of India Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 and the KVS Office Memorandum dated 01.09.1988, particularly paragraph 2, which provided that persons joining KVS on or after 01.01.1986 “shall be governed only” by the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme and would have no option to remain under CPF.

The Tribunal held that an option obtained contrary to a mandatory pension policy is legally invalid and cannot defeat the employee’s substantive pension entitlement.

It further relied on A.P. Verma v. National Council of Educational Research & Training, affirmed by the Supreme Court, concerning the character of appointment through direct recruitment, and on Union of India v. Namrata Semwal, Mrs. Gurmail Kaur v. Commissioner, KVS, and Manoj Kumar v. Union of India, which recognized that pensionary claims involving continuing deprivation give rise to a recurring cause of action and cannot be rejected solely on delay or laches.

The constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 were also applied in assessing the differential treatment between the applicant and similarly situated employees.

The Tribunal found that the respondents failed to produce the relevant Recruitment Rules or any executive instruction establishing a promotional channel from Upper Division Clerk to Audit Assistant through LDCE.

Conversely, the applicant’s appointment letter described the appointment as an offer of appointment to the post of Audit Assistant, prescribed a two-year probation period, and related to a different cadre, which indicated fresh recruitment rather than promotion.

The Regional Office’s contemporaneous communication dated 03.01.2018 also recorded that the applicant had been appointed through direct recruitment; the respondents’ explanation that this statement was issued “inadvertently” was unsupported by documentary evidence.

Having held that the applicant was a fresh appointee after 01.01.1986, the Tribunal applied paragraph 2 of the KVS Office Memorandum dated 01.09.1988. Since that provision excluded CPF coverage and denied any option to fresh entrants, the CPF option obtained from the applicant was contrary to the governing policy and was non est.

The applicant’s long acceptance of CPF benefits could not validate an administrative action inconsistent with the applicable policy or extinguish his pensionary rights.

The limitation objection also failed because denial of pension constituted a continuing and recurring cause of action, and the respondents had in any event considered and rejected the applicant’s claim on merits.

Finally, the respondents did not establish any rational distinction between the applicant and Shri Satbir, who had been granted conversion from CPF to GPF-cum-Pension, making the denial of similar relief arbitrary and inconsistent with Articles 14 and 16.

Consequently, he was mandatorily governed by the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme under the KVS Office Memorandum dated 01.09.1988, and the CPF option obtained from him was invalid.

The orders dated 12.12.2018 and 16/17.01.2019 were quashed and set aside.

The respondents were directed to treat the applicant as governed by the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme from the date of his appointment as Audit Assistant and to grant all consequential pensionary and retiral benefits, subject to permissible accounting adjustments relating to CPF contributions.

The exercise was directed to be completed within three months of receipt of the certified order. No order as to costs was made.