Holding

The employee had validly exercised the option to remain in the CPF scheme, as shown by the letters, account numbers and pay certificates, and therefore was not entitled to GPF benefits; the CAT and High Court were erroneous in their contrary findings.

Summary

Respondent No.1, a teacher employed by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), exercised the option to remain in the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme and was allotted a CPF account number. She later sought to switch to the General Provident Fund (GPF) scheme, but KVS rejected her request, leading to a dispute. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) held that she was entitled to GPF benefits, a decision upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the evidence—including the employee's own letters, account numbers, and last pay certificates—showing she had continued under the CPF scheme. The Court concluded that the secondary evidence was sufficient to establish the exercise of the CPF option and that the CAT and High Court were incorrect in granting her GPF benefits. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, confirming that she was not entitled to GPF benefits.

Issues considered

Whether the employee validly exercised the option to continue in the CPF scheme, thereby disqualifying her from GPF benefits.
Whether secondary evidence such as letters, account numbers, and pay certificates can establish the exercise of the option in the absence of the original application document.
Whether the decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court erred in holding that the employee was entitled to GPF benefits.

Subjects

Service LawProvident FundGeneral Provident FundContributory Provident FundKendriya Vidyalaya SangathanCentral Administrative TribunalEvidenceSecondary evidencePension

Judgment

,,.. .
K.V.S. AND ORS. A
,) v.
JASPAL KAUR AND ORS.

JUNE 6, 2007

[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] B

Service Law:
,,
Provident Fund Schemes-GPF and CPF-Employee of Kendriya
Vidalaya Sangthan subscribing to GPF Scheme-Issuance of Circular by c
KVS providing for option to employee to change over from GPF to CPF
Scheme-Incumbent, teacher, opted to continue in the CPF Scheme-New
CPF Scheme number allotted to her-Later, she desired to change from CPF
Scheme to GPF Scheme-Representation-Rejected by Authorities-Allowing
original application, Central Administrative Tribunal held that she was D
entitled to claim benefit of GPF Scheme-Challenge to--Dismissed by High
Court-On appeal, Held: Last pay Certificate clearly indicates that she. was
"1
subscribing to CPF Scheme-Al/ other documents produced by the authorities
establish that she had exercised option for the CPF Scheme-Merely because
the original documents relating to exercise of such option was not produced
1,
by the authorities, should not be a ground to ignore the ample material E
produced by them to show the exercise of the option by the incumbent-Both
the Courts below are not justified in taking a different view.

Respondent no. I joined as a Primary School Teacher in the Kendriya
Vidayala Sangathan (KVS). KVS issued a Circular providing for an option to F,
its employees to switch over to GPF Scheme from the CPF Scheme.
... ... Respondent No.I having exercised the option to continue in CPF Scheme, a
new CPF account number was allotted to her. Later, she desired to change
from CPF Scheme to GPF Scheme. Therefore, she made a representation to
the concerned authorities. The authorities rejected the representation.
Thereafter, an order was passed by KVS to the effect that she was not entitled G
to claim benefit of GPF Scheme cum Pension Scheme as she had opted for
CPF Scheme. She moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). CAT
held that she was entitled to claim benefit of GPF Scheme cum Pension
-, Scheme. The order of CAT was challenged by the authorities by filing a writ

-(
969 H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.
1111
A petition, which was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. I

Appellants contended that the option to continue with CPF Scheme had
been exercised by respondent no. 1, which is evident from several documents
produced by them before the Court.

B Respondents submitted that the original documents showing exercise
of option were not produced; and that because some other pieces of evidence
were produced, they were not sufficient to show that option had been exercised

Allowing the appeal, the Court

C HELD: 1.1. Respondent no. 1, in her letter dated 15th March, 1997, ha.s
categorically stated that she was contributing towards CPF Scheme, wherein
she has mentioned her account number. The letter was addressed to the
accounts Officer. This document clearly establishes that respondent no 1 was
aware of the change in account number and she herself referred to account
D number. Her feigned ignorance about the change is absolutely hollow because
she herself knows about the changed number. (Para 6( (973-A, Bl

J .2. The last pay certificate issued to the respondent no. 1 when she
handed over charge on 23.5.1992 clearly indicates that CPF subscription of
Rs. 130/- was being deduced and that she had opted for the pay of CPF Scheme
E and rate of subscription is Rs. 130/- per month and CPF account number was
being inferred. On the face of these documents the CAT and the High Court
should no have held that option was not exercised by the respondent no. 1.
(Para 7( (973-B, q

1.3. All the documents produced establish that respondent no. 1 had
F exercised the option for the CPF Scheme. Merely because the original
document relating to exercise of option was not produced that should not be a
ground to ignore the ample materials produced to show exercise of the option.
The CAT and the High Court were not justified in taking a different view.
(Para 7( (973-D, El

G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2876 of2007.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 22.3.2005 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 2365 of 2005.
. I
(
S. Rajappa for the Appellants.
H
K.V.S. v. JASPAL KAUR[PASA YAT.J.J 971
Rajesh. Dinesh Venna. Usha. A.P. Mohanthy and Rajesh Kumar Basandhi A
· for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. l. Leave granted.
B
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. I joined as a primary School Teacher in the Kendriya
c
Vidyalaya Sangathan (for Short 'KVS') on 20th July, 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. ls name is at serial no. 8 D
'
........... 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. I for habingn exercised the option to continue in the CPF Scheme. on
15.7.1989 revised CPF w:ount which was allotted by Jetter dated 6.3.1989 was
furhter changed vide O.M. dated 15.7.1989 in which also name ofrespondent
E
no. I appeared at serial no. 8 On 15.3.1997 letter was received from respondent
no. I stating that she had been continuing under the CPF Scheme and it
should be changed to GPF Scheme. In this Jetter respondent no. !stated that
she had been contributing towards the CPF and the CPF account no. is JRC
1889. On 16.9.2002 respondent no. l made another representation to change
from CPF Scheme to GPF Scheme. By letter dated 7, 11,2002 Senior Audit and F
.... Accounts Officer rejected the representation for change from CPF Scheme to
GPF Scheme. on 8,32004 an order was passed by KVS to the efrect that
respondent no. I 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 'CA TA
G
' CAT held that she was entitled to claim b1:nefit of GPF Scheme cum Pension
Scheme The original applications 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 bushed aside the secondary evidence 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 H
J

972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007[ 7 S.C.R.

A respondent no. I 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. I was entitled to get GPF pension Scheme with .:/
effect from the due date with consequential benefits. Writ petition filed before
High Court was dismissed on the sole ground that in spite of the number of
B opportunities given to the department no direct evidence was furnished w.as
The High Court department on direct evidence was furbished. The High Court
held that the option was to be exercised in writing and other materials
produced were not sufficeir to show that, respondent no. I had exercised
option

c been made
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the reference has
to various documnts which prima facie show that the option has
been exercised. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the original documents show exercise of option were not not
produced. Merely because some other pieces of evidence were produced,
they were not sufficient to show that option had been exercised.
D
5. In this context it is to be noted that the Tribunal itself noted that in /

'the Pass Book name of applicant appears at no. 1889 and the signa~res of r '"'
the Principal of KVS is indicated. It indicates her appointment in KVS from
July 1978 to May 1992 in Delhi, from May 1992 to April 2002 Baddowal, from
April 2003 to April 2004 at Halwara and thereafter again at KVS Baddowal.
E It shows her account no. 1889. A copy of the Income tax return having
deductions from pay and allowance for depositing in the CPF confirm this
fact. The secondary pieces of evidence which go to show that deductions
were being made at regular basis from pay and allowance. This according to
CAT was not sufficient to show that she had exercised her option.
F
6. It is to be noted that in the allotment of revised CPF number in the
).-
letter ofKVS no. 16-2/C0/89-90/CPF/KVS/PF dated 6.3389, name ofrespondent
no. I appears at serial no.8 and the revised CPG no. is shown as 1889 in place
of the earlier CPG no. CEC 2685. This change has not been denied by
respondent no. I. Additionally, again in letter no. KVS no. 16-2/C0/89-90/CPF/
G KVS/PF dated 6.7.1989 the name of respondent no.I appears at serial no. 8
and again existing CPF No. CEC 2685 has been indicated. This letter is
significant because there is a note in the service book of the concerned
employee in respect of allotted CPC AiC under intimation to them. KVS letter ,i

H
no. F-2/C.0/89-90/CPF/KVS/PF dated 15.7.89 with reference to the earlier letter
of 6.7.89 intimated the employees about the change. Again in this letter the '
K.V.S. v. JASPALKAUR[PASAYAT, J.] 973

,.. name of respondent no. 1 appears at serail no. 8 Most vital document in this A
I controversy is respondent no.l's letter dated 15th March, 1997. In this she
has categorically stated that she was contributing towards CPF and her
account no. is JRC 1889. This was addressed to the Accounts Officer. This
document clearly establiihes that respondent no. I was aware of the change
in account number and she herself referred to account number. Her feigned
ignorance about the change is absolutely hollow because she herself knows B
about the changed number.

)
7. The last pay certificate issued to the respondent no. I when, she
han_ded over charge on 23 .5. l 992 clearly indicate that CPF subscriptions of
Rs. \30/- was being deducted and that she had opted for the pay of CPF
Scheme and rate of subscription is Rs. 130/- for month and allotment of CPF
c
account number 1889 was being transferred. Ori the face of these documents
the CAT and the High Court should not have held that option was not
exercised by the repondent no. 1. Pursuant to this Court's order the original
service book of respondent no. I was produced. Even on 10.6.2005 in the last
pay certificate it has been stated that she had opted for the CPF Scheme. D
.... Similar is the position in the last pay certificate dated n 19.4.2003 and the last
l
pay certificate of 18.1.1982. All these documents establish that respondent no.
I had exercised the option for the CPF Scheme. Merely because the original
documents relating to exercise to option was not produced that should not
be a ground to ignore the ample materials produced to show exercise of the
option. The CAT and the High Court were not justified in talking a difference
E
view.

8. The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without any order as
to costs.

- ""' S.K.S. Appeal allowed.
F