W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 1 of 70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 05.08.2025 Pronounced on: 02.09.2025 (1)+ W .P.(C) 3172/2019 BHARTI BAHUGUN A ...Petitioner Through: M r. S. Sunil, Adv. versus KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ORS ...Respondents Through: M r. U. N. Singh, M r. D. N. Singh and M s. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS M s. Shubhra Parashar and M r. V. P. S. Charak, Advs. for UOI. (2)+ W .P.(C) 2113/2020 DURGA SHIVA KUM AR & ORS. ...Petitioners Th rough: M r. Anirudh Gupta, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...Respondents Through: M r. U. N. Singh, M r. D. N. Singh and M s. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS (3)+ W .P.(C) 2676/2020 & CM APLs. 44100/2022 & 20317/2024 ANJALI DAS & ORS ...Petitioners Through: M r. K.K. Rai, Sr. Adv. with M r. S.K. Pandey, M r. Anshul Rai, M s. Sreshi Chatterjee, M r. Rajan Parmar, M r. Chandrasekhar A. Chaualabbi and M r. Awanish Kumar, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ...Respondent s Through: M r. U. N. Singh, M r. D. N. Singh and M s. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS Dr. Amar Nath Gupta and M r. W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 2 of 70 Santosh Kumar Sahu, Advs. for R-12, 14, 15 and 16. (4)+ W .P.(C) 9479/2020 & CM APL. 30500/2020 KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN ...Petitioner Through: M r. U. N. Singh, M r. D. N. Singh and M s. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS versus M S. NISHA RANI ...Respondent Through: M r. Ravi Shankar Roy, Adv. (5)+ W .P.(C) 10278/2020 & CM APL. 32534/2020 KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN ...Petitioner Through: M r. U. N. Singh, M r. D. N. Singh and M s. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS versus M S.RADHIKA JOSHI ...Respondent Through: M r. N. P. Joshi, Adv. (6)+ W .P.(C) 11077/2020 & CM APL. 34583/2020 KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN ...Petitioner Through: M r. U. N. Singh, M r. D. N. Singh and M s. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS versus M RS.SHRADHA KASHYAP AND ORS ...Respondents Through: Dr. Amar Nath Gupta and M r. Santosh Kumar Sahu, Advs. (7)+ W .P.(C) 13002/2021 & CM APL. 40981/2021 KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN ...Petitioner Through: M r. U. N. Singh, M r. D. N. Singh and M s. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS versus SM T. SAROJ SHARM A ...Respondent W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 3 of 70 Through: M r.Suresh Sharma, Adv. (8)+ W .P.(C) 10818/2022 SM T. INDU W AHI ...Petitioner Through: M r.Suresh Sharma, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...Respondents Through: M r. U. N. Singh, M r. D. N. Singh and M s. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS M r.Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with M r.Keshav Sehgal, Adv. for UOI M s.Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, SPC with M s.Usha Jamnal, M s.Harshita Chaturvedi, Advs. for UOI. (9) + W .P.(C) 1040 8/2020 & CM APL. 32971/2020 KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN ...Petitioner Through: M r. U. N. Singh, M r. D. N. Singh and M s. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS versus M ADAN LAL PANERI ...Respondent Through: (10)+ W .P.(C) 748/2024 RITU SINGH ...Petitioner Through: Dr.Amar Nath Gupta and M r.Santosh Kumar, Advs. versus THE COM M ISIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ORS. ...Respondents Through: M r. U. N. Singh, M r. D. N. Singh and M s. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 4 of 70 (11)+ W .P.(C) 766/2024 VUTLA SUBBARAO ...Petitioner Through: Dr.Amar Nath Gupta and M r.Santosh Kumar, Advs. versus THE COM M ISIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ORS. ...Respondents Through: M r. U. N. Singh, M r. D. N. Singh and M s. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS (12)+ W .P.(C) 8970/2024 GURVINDER KAUR SANDHU ...Petitioner Through: Dr.Amar Nath Gupta and M r.Santosh Kumar, Advs. versus THE COM M ISIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATH AN & ANR. ...Respondents Through: M r. U. N. Singh, M r. D. N. Singh and M s. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS (13)+ W .P.(C) 14455/2021 M R. P. RAM ACHANDRA REDDY & ANR. ...Petitioners Through: Dr.Amar Nath Gupta and M r.San tosh Kumar, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...Respondents Through: M r.Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC with M r.Kushagra Kumar, M r.Amit Kr. Rana, Advs. for UOI. M r. U. N. Singh, M r. D. N. Singh and M s. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS (14)+ W .P.(C) 1440/2022 BIJAY KUM AR JHA ...Petitioner Through: M r.Abhishek Singh, Adv. versus W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 5 of 70 THE COM M ISIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ANR. ...Respondents Through: M r. U. N. Singh, M r. D. N. Singh and M s. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS (15)+ W .P.(C) 11465/2023 BHUPINDER JIT SODHI & ANR. ...Petitioners Through: Dr.Amar Nath Gupta and M r.Santosh Kumar, Advs. versus THE COM M ISIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ANR. ...Respondents Thro ugh: M r. U. N. Singh, M r. D. N. Singh and M s. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS (16)+ W .P.(C) 50/2024 USHA CHOUDHARY ...Petitioner Through: M r.Kripa Shankar Prasad and M r.Harsh Jain, Advs. versus KENDRIYA VIDYALAY SANGATHAN THROUGH COM M ISIONER & ORS. ...Respondents Through: M r. U. N. Singh, M r. D. N. Singh and M s. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS (17)+ W .P.(C) 12211/2023 SM T.RAKESH KUM ARI ...Petitioner Through: M r.G. Natarajan, Adv. versus THE COM M ISIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ANR. ...Respondents Through: M r. U. N. Singh, M r. D. N. Singh and M s. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS (18)+ W .P.(C) 12991/2023 & CM APL. 51223/2023 W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 6 of 70 CHANDRA CHOOR PANDEY ...Petitioner Through: M s.Anubha Dhulia, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...Respondents Through: M s.Nidhi Banga, SPC with M r.Sandep Chaudhary, Adv. for R-1/UOI. M r. U. N. Singh, M r. D. N. Singh and M s. Sandh ya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS (19)+ W .P.(C) 16726/2023 ALOK KUM AR SHARM A & ANR. ...Petitioners Through: Dr.Amar Nath Gupta and M r.Santosh Kumar, Advs. versus THE COM M ISIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ORS. ...Respondents Through: M r. U. N. Singh, M r. D. N. Singh and M s. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS M r. N. K. Bhatnagar, M r. Arkam Khan and M s.Tanushree Khandelwal, Advs. (20)+ W .P.(C) 1373/2024 AM IN UDDIN KHAN AND ANOTHER ...Petitioners Through: M s.A nubha Dhulia, Adv. versus THE COM M ISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ANR ...Respondents Through: M r. U. N. Singh, M r. D. N. Singh and M s. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS (21)+ W .P.(C) 5718/2024 USHA KIRAN DHAM IJA ...Petitioner Through: Dr.Amar Nath Gupta and W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 7 of 70 M r.Santosh Kumar, Advs. versus COM M ISIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ANR. ...Respondents Through: M r. U. N. Singh, M r. D. N. Singh and M s. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS (22)+ W .P.(C) 10032/2024 M . SAROJINI NANCY BALA & ORS. ...Petitioners Through: Dr.Amar Nath Gupta and M r.Santosh Kumar, Advs. versus KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ORS. ...Respondents Through: M r. U. N. Singh, M r. D. N. Singh and M s. Sand hya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS M r.Naginder Benipal, SPC with M r.Ankit Siwach, M r.Udit Vaghela and M r.Arjun Baliyan, Advs. (23)+ W .P.(C) 6557/2024 ANKARAJU SAVITHRI DEVI ...Petitioner Through: Dr.Amar Nath Gupta and M r.Santosh Kumar, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...Respondents Through: M r.Kshitij Chhabra, SPC with M r.Kamaldep, Adv. M r. U. N. Singh, M r. D. N. Singh and M s. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS (24)+ W .P.(C) 9581/2024 & CM APL. 39347/2024 SM T KRISHNA DAS & ORS. ...Petitioners Through: Dr.Amar Nath Gupta and W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 8 of 70 M r.Santosh Kumar, Advs. versus THE COM M ISIONER KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ORS. ...Respondents Through: M r. U. N. Singh, M r. D. N. Singh and M s. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS (25)+ W .P.(C) 15137/2024 & CM APL. 63528/2024 KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN THROUGH ITS COM M ISIONER ..... Petitioner Through: M r. U. N. Singh, M r. D. N. Singh and M s. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advs. for KVS versus DIVYA TIW ARI & ORS. ...Respondents Through: Dr.Amar Nath Gupta and M r.Santosh Kumar Sahu, Advs. M r.Abhishek Tyagi and M r.Rajiv M itra, Advs. CORAM : HON'BLE M R. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAW LA HON'BLE M S. JUSTICE SHALI NDER KAUR J U D G M E N T SHALINDER KAUR, J. 1. The present batch of W rit Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , have ben filed to assail the final Orders passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter refered to as, µ7ULEXQDO¶ , either allowing or dismissing the Original Applications µ2$¶ filed by the employes of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan µ.96¶ seking grant of the W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 9 of 70 benefits under the General Provident Fund µ*3 F¶ -cum -Pension Scheme of the KVS. 2. At the outset , we may note that the batch of petitions involve similar issues of law and arise from a common bundle of facts , though the date s of joining , retirement and nature of appointment are different, therefore, it is demed appropriate to adjudicate them vide this common Judg ment. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 3. The brief factual matrix , so far as is relevant to the present petitions , is that pursuant to the recommendation s of the Fourth Central Pay Commission (CPC) , Ofice M emorandum dated 01.05.1987 was issued by the M inistry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Department of Pensions and 3HQVLRQHUV¶ W elfare, for switch -over of employes from the Contributory Provident Fund µ&3)¶ Scheme to the Pension Sch eme, acording to which all CPF beneficiaries who were in service of the Central Government on 01.01.1986 and continue to remain in service , were demed to have come over to the Pension Scheme unless , on or before 30.09.1987, they specifically opted to con tinue under the CPF Scheme. It was further stipulated that the CPF beneficiaries, who were in service on 01. 01.1986 but have since retired and in whose case retirement benefits have also ben paid under the CPF Scheme, will have an option to have their ret irement benefits calculated under the Pension Scheme provided they opt for the same latest by 30.09.1987 and refund to the Government, the Government contribution to the W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 10 of 70 Contributory Provident Fund and the interest thereon, drawn by them at the time of set tlement of the CPF Acount. It was stipulated that the option once exercised, shall be final. The relevant extract from the said OM is as under: ³ Al CPF beneficiaries, who were in service on 1.1.1986 and who are stil in service on the date of isue of these orders will be deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme. 3.2. The employees of the category mentioned above will, however, have an option to continue under the CPF Scheme, if they so desire. The option will have to be exercised and conveyed to the concerned Head of Ofice by 30.09.1987 in the form enclosed if the employees wish to continue under the CPF Scheme. If no option is received by the Head of Ofice by the above date the employees will be deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme. 3.3. The CPF beneficiaries, who were in service on 1.1.1986 but have since retired and in whose case retirement benefits have also been paid under the CPF Scheme, will have an option to have their retirement benefits calculated under the Pension Scheme pr ovided they refund to the Government, the Government contribution to the Contributory Provident Fund and the interest thereon, drawn by them at the time of setlement of the CPF Account. Such option shall be exercised latest by 30.09.1987. xxxxx 3.6 The option once exercised shal be final. xxxxx 4.2 In the case of employees refered to above, who come over or are deemed to come over to the Pension Scheme, the Government's contribution to the CPF together with the interest thereon credited to the CPF Account W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 1 of 70 of the employee will be resumed by the Government. The employees contribution together with the interest thereon at his credit in the CPF Account will be transfered to the GPF Account to be aloted to him on his coming over to the Pension Sc heme. ´ 4. The KVS adopted the said OM dated 01.05.1987 vide OM No. 152 -1/79 -80/KVS/Budget/Part II dated 01.09.1988 and decided to implement it mutatis mutandis , except that the date of giving the option was stipulated as 31.01.1989 . The relevant portions of the KVS OM dated 01.09.1988 read s as under: ³,Q the 51st M eeting of the Board of Governors of the Kendriya Vidyaiaya Sangathan heid on 31st M ay, 198, it was aproved that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan will, implement mutatis -mutand is the decision taken by the Govt. of India on the recomendations of the Fourth Central Pay Comision for its employees for the change over from Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to Pension Scheme in the maner as indicated in the M inistry of Personel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Dept. Of Pension and Pensioners' W elfare) O.M . No. 4/1/87 - PIC dated 1.5.1987. 2. It has, accordingly, been decided that persons joining service in the Sangathan on or after 1.1.1986 shall be governed only by the G.P.F. -cum -Pension Scheme and will have no option for C.P.F. Scheme. However, for al CPF beneficiaries, who were in service on 1.1.1986, the decision taken shall be Implemented in the maner hereinafter indicated. 3. Al C.P.F. beneficiaries, who were in service on 1.1.1986 and who are stil in service on the date of isue of these orders will be deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme. W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 12 of 70 3.2 The employees of the category mentioned above will, however, have an option to continue under the CPF Scheme, if they so desired. The option will have to be exercised and conveyed to the concerned Head of ofice/Principal by 31.1.1989. In duplicate, in the form enclosed (one form may be sent to this ofice while the other kept with personal records of the employee concerned ) if the employees wish to continue under the CPF Scheme. If no option is received by the Head of Ofice/Principal by the above date and in this ofice through them by 28.2.1989 the employees will be deemed to have come over the Pension Scheme. The Head of Ofice/Principals are to forward in one lot options exercised by employees for retention of CPF Scheme received by them, to reach Sangathan's Ofice latest by 28.2.1989, where no option to continue under the CPF Scheme is received by them from any, a nil report be sent by due date viz. 28.2.1989. 3.3 The C.P.F beneficiaries, who were in service -on 1.1.1986, but. haye since retired and in whose case retirement benefits have also been paid under the C.P.F Scheme, will have option to have their retirement benefits calculated under the Pension Scheme provided they refund to the Sangathan, the Sangathan contribution (M anag ement Share) to the Contributory Provident Fund and the interest thereon, drawn by them at the time of setlement of the CPF account. Such option shall be exercised latest by 31.1.1989. xxxxx 3.6 The Option once exercised shall be final. xxxxx 4.2 In the case of employees refered to above, who come over or are deemed to come over to the Pension Scheme, the Sangathan's contribution to the CPF together with the interest thereon credited to the CPF account of the employee will be resumed by the W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 13 of 70 Sangathan. The employees contribution together with the interest thereon at his credit in the CPF account will be transfered to the CPF account, to be aloted to him on his coming over to the Pension 6FKHPH´ 5. At this stage, it would be relevant to note that M r. K. K. Rai, learned Senior Counsel for some of the employes of the KVS , pursuant to our Order dated 14.07.2025, furnished consolidated written submissions on behalf of the employes , and submitted that all the writ petitions can be categorized into thre categories, which are as follows: I. Category A: Employes who had not opted to continue in the CPF Scheme during the prescribed period of five months, that is, from 01.09.1988 to 31.01.1989, in terms of the KVS OM dated 01.09.1988. II. Category B: Em ployes who had opted to continue in the CPF Scheme during the said five -month period from 01.09.1988 to 31.01.1989 and now want to switch over to the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme . III. Category C: Employes who were direct apointes (or whose services were confirme d/regularised) between 01.01.1986 and 31.12.2003, when the CPF Scheme was not in operation. 6. The learned Senior Counsel has also provided us with a list , splitting all the petitions in the present batch into the thre categories W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 14 of 70 mentioned above, as under: Category 'A' Category 'B' Category 'C' W .P. (C) Nos. 3172/2019, 213/2020, 9479/2020, 140/202, 10818/202, 121/2023, 748/2024, 76/2024, 1077/2020, 16726/2023,1465/2023, 10278/2020,1302/2021, 5718/2024, 9581/2024, 1032/2024, 50/2024 and Respondent Nos. 73 & 74 in W.P. (C) 145/2021. W .P.(C) Nos. 2676/2020, 145/2021, and Respondent Nos. 7, 9 and 1 in W.P.(C) No. 107/2020 W .P.(C) Nos. 657/2024, 8970/2024, 15137/2024, 10408/2020. 1373/2024 and 1291/2023 7. The common grievance of the employees is that they sek retiral benefits under the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme instead of the CPF Scheme . 8. Category A employes claim that they are eligible for the benefits under the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme as they never opted to remain in the CPF Scheme and, therefore, automatically came over to the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme as per the deming provision under paragraph 3.2 of the OM dated 01.09.1988. Category B employes claim that though they had initia lly opted to continue under the CPF Scheme during the prescribed period, they should be entitled to switch over to the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme , based on principles of parity and equality, as similar opportunities had ben granted to employes in other organ izations as also KVS employes in other States. W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 15 of 70 Category C employes claim that as per paragraph 2 of the OM dated 01.09.1988, persons joining service in the KVS on or after 01.01.1986 shall be governed only by the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme and will have no option for the CPF Scheme, therefore, since they were borne in service post the cut -of date, they would automatically come under the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme. 9. It is the case of the employes that in this regard, they requested the KVS to consider them under the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme and also submitted representations for the same, which were , however, rejected, prompting them to approach the learned Tribunal. 10. The learned Tribunal was pleased to allow some OAs and dismiss the others. Acordingly, the KV S has filed W rit Petitions against the former, while the employes have filed W rit Petitions against the latter. DELAY AND LACHES 11. At the outset, we dem it appropriate to first address the common preliminary objection of delay and laches raised by the KVS across all categories. SUBM ISIONS ON BEHALF OF THE KVS 12. The learned counsel for the KVS submitted that the present batch of petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It was submitted that the actual cause of action arose way back in the year 1989, when the employes were asked to submit their option forms in terms of the KVS OM dated 01.09.1988 . He W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 16 of 70 submitted that thus, the employes could not have approached the learned Tribunal or this Co urt at such a belated stage to voice their grievances , particularly when in some of the cases, the petitions have ben filed many years after retirement, which is not permissible in law. 13. The learned counsel vociferously urged that the employes have no rig ht to receive the benefits under the GPF -cum -Pension Schem e by claiming that the said right is a continuous cause of action. It was submitted that even if it is assumed that the KVS had allowed them to make payment s under the CPF Scheme despite not having opted for the same, the employes could have raised their grievance s within a year from when the OM dated 01.09.1988 came into efect , that is, the period of limitation prescribed for fil ing an OA , and not beyond that. 14. The learned counsel further submitte d that the present petitions are squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in DTC v. M adhu Bhushan Anand , 2010 (172) DLT 668, and the employes have filed the present petitions belatedly, without any explanation for the delay and laches in appr oaching the learned Tribunal and , hence, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors . v. M .K. Sarkar , (2010) 2 SCC 59 , and of this Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. M anju Sehgal , 2021:DHC:937 -DB, and of the High Court of Kerala in M .R. Indira v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. , 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 11465. W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 17 of 70 SUBM ISIONS ON BEHALF OF THE EM PLOYES OF THE KVS 15. Per contra , the learned counsels for employes submitted that the right to pension , being a fundamental right , could not be circumscribed by taking recourse to the plea of delay and laches. Reliance was placed on the judgment dated 17.01.2019 of Bombay High Court in W .P No. 1331/2017, titled Amita Ajit Desai & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 16. It was also submitted that insofar as the right to pension is concerned, the cause of action is of a continuing nature and, therefore, the plea of limitation would not arise. Hence, the HPSOR\HHV¶ claim cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay. Reliance in thi s regard was placed on the decision of Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr . vs. Tarsem Singh , (2008) 8 SCC 648. 17. It was further submitted that the reliance of the KVS on the case of M . K. Sarkar (supra) is misplaced as the facts of the said case did not include any deming provision, which was available in the present batch of petitions . The learned counsels submitted that in the present case, a legal fiction was created by the OM whereby employees were automatically demed to have come over to the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme unless they consciously opt ed otherwise, and the operation of such legal fiction cannot be negated by subsequent conduct or delay in asserting rights. 18. Regarding Category B employes, the learned counsels further submitted that ev en employes who had initially opted for CPF Scheme , should be entitled to switch over to GPF -cum -Pension W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 18 of 70 Scheme based on the principle of parity and equality, as similar opportunities had ben granted to employes in other organizations as also to KVS emp loyes by other High Courts and afirmed by the Supreme Court . It was submitted that delay cannot be a ground to deny such beneficial schemes when the purpose is employe welfare. 19. For Category C employes, it was submitted that these employes, being eithe r direct recruits or employes joining/regularized after 01.01.1986, were mandatorily to be governed only by the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme as per clause 2 of the KVS OM dated 01.09.1988, and therefore any delay in claiming their rightful benefits cannot preju dice their statutory entitlement. 20. The learned counsels submitted that in the se peculiar facts and circumstances of the present petitions, employes cannot be denied their valuable right to claim benefit under the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme after retirement. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 21. On due consideration of the above submissions , it may be noted that the doctrine of delay and laches prevents the grant of relief when the delay is unreasonable and causes unfair prejudice to the opposite side. Laches is an equitable concept that considers the consequence of delay. Thus, in the present batch of petitions, the length of delay and the nature of the acts done during the course of delay that might afect rights of either party are to be considered before exercising the discretion in favour of the party that belatedly approached the Tribunal. 22. From the record, what emerges is that some of the employe s W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 19 of 70 had filed representations before the KVS to claim benefit of the GPF - cum -Pension Scheme prior to their retirement , while others filed representations thereafter. Undoubtedly , there is delay in the filing of the OAs before the learned Tribunal in most cases , however, we have to remain conscious of the fact that employes herein are litigating to claim financial benefit s arising out of the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme, which was a beneficial scheme intended for employe welfare . 23. To appreciate the legal context, it is pertinent to note that the Government of India, through OM dated 01.05.1987, introduced a paradigm shift in the pension system for Central Government employes. The OM was issued to implement the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission, which had recommended that all CPF beneficia ries in service as on 01.01.1986 would henceforth be demed to be covered under the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme from that date, unless they submitted a specific option to continue under the CPF Scheme within the prescribed time limit. The KVS adopted this OM mu tatis mutandis through its OM dated 01.09.1988, extending the cut -off date to 31.01.1989 for its employes. 24. The Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. S.L. Verma & Ors. , (2006) 12 SC 53, while dealing with similar issues, held that by reason of the OM dated 01.05.1987, a legal fiction was created. The Court observed that only when an employe consciously opted to continue with the CPF Scheme , such employe would not become a member of the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme. Once employes became members of the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme by virtue of this legal fiction, they would be demed to have come over to the pension W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 20 of 70 scheme, which a fortiori would mean that they no longer remained in the CPF scheme, regardless of subsequent contributions made by them or their emplo yer. 25. M ore recently, the Supreme Court in University of Delhi v. Smt. Shashi Kiran & Ors. , (2022) 15 SCC 325, dealt with a comprehensive batch of cases involving thre distinct categories of employes: (i) employes who had not exercised any option at all (the R.N. Virmani batch - analogous to Category (A) in the present case ; (ii) employes who had not exercised their option by the cut -of date but had exercised the option during extensions; and (iii) employes who had consciously opted for CPF but later sought to switch over (the Shashi Kiran batch - analogous to Category (B) of the present case . The Court categorically held that switch over from the CPF Scheme to the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme shall be permissible in all these categories, and that such claim s would not be bared by delay, laches, or limitation. 26. In this context, we may note that the learned Single Judge of this Court, in R.N. Virmani & Ors. v. University of Delhi & Anr. , 2014:DHC:2285, while dealing with employes who had not exercised any option at all , rejected the objection of delay and laches, holding that the right to pension constitutes a continuing cause of action, placing reliance on Tarsem Singh (supra). The said view of the learned Single Judge, in fact, now stands afirmed by the Supreme Court in Shashi Kiran (supra) , as noted hereinabove . 27. Acordingly, the objection raised by the KVS on the ground of delay and laches cannot be sustained. As clarified in Shashi Kiran W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 21 of 70 (supra), even where an employe had availed of the CPF benefit s, that by itself cannot operate as a bar to his entitlement under the GPF - cum -Pension Scheme. Such employes are to be treated as µdeemed pension opte s¶ in terms of KVS OM dated 01.09.1988. The only requirement in such a case, as held by this Court in Delhi Transport Corporation v. Anil Luthra , 2025:DHC:1700 -DB, would be for the employe to refund the CPF benefits so availed by him at the time of his retirement, along with interest. 28. In this regard, it is apposite to note the observations of Shashi Kira n (supra), which are as follows: ³51. According to the Notification dated 1-5- 1987, the employees joining the service after 1-1- 1986 would always be under GPF. W ith respect to those who were in service on 1-1-1986, said employees would be deemed to have ³F ome RYHU´ to GPF unles an option to continue to be under CPF was consciously exercised before the cut -of date. Thus, when the Scheme was framed and was sought to be implemented, the authorities concerned must have taken into account the entire magnitude such as, the number of employees and the likelihod of impact on the management of the fund, so that reasonable returns can be efected by way of pension upon retirement of such persons. Going by the intent of the notification, those who were to opt for CP F, were an exception and the general rule was that everybody after 1-1-1986 would normaly be covered by GPF. It is in this context that the number of original petitioners in Shashi Kiran batch of cases has to be seen. W e are concerned with only 75 persons . On the other hand, the bulk of people, namely, 2469 employees were granted the choice of reverse switch over and they were alowed al the benefits under GPF. It can reasonably be said that when the Notification dated 1-5-1987 was isued, the authorities were W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 2 of 70 conscious of the posibility that al the employees may ³FRPH RYHU´ to GPF. W ith that posibility in mind, the fund was constituted and the afairs were aranged. The shift of those 75 employees would not in any way affect the strength and the charac ter of the fund if a direction that the entire contribution made by the authorities be returned with reasonable rate of interest is isued. These 75 petitioners had aproached the Court in the year 2010. At this length of time, it is not as if any flodgat es are going to open and there will be drain on the resources of the State. A direction can, therefore, be isued, as was done by the learned Single Judge in para 20 of his judgment in R.N. Virmani [R.N. Virmani v. University of Delhi, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 279] batch of cases and which aspect was mentioned in the Leter dated 23 -1-2017 refered to in para 31.4 hereinabove, for recouping the contribution under CPF with 8% simple interest per annum. 52. Considering the circumstances on record, in our view, the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court in Shashi batch of cases does not cal for any interference except to the extent of direction for recouping of the contribution under CPF with 8% simple interest per anum. It is posible that at this length of time, some of the employees in Shashi Kiran batch of cases may not be interested in switch over to GPF. But an option must be aforded to them in such maner as the authorities deem aSSURSULDWH´ (Emphasis Suplied) 29. The decision of Shashi Kiran (supra) has also been consistently followed by various High Courts. The Rajasthan High Court , in its decision dated 27.07.2023 in D.B. Civil W rit Petition No. 16675/2022 , titled The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. v. M rs. Gurmail Kaur , dealt with KVS employes W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 23 of 70 in similar circumstances and held that switch over from CPF to GPF - cum -Pension Scheme should be permitted. Similarly, the High Court of M adhya Pradesh , in Ram Dayal v. Union of India & Ors. , 2024 SCC OnLine M P 3299 , allowed similar claims of KVS employes . Significantly, the Special Leave Petitions filed against both these decisions have ben dismissed by the Supreme Court, thereby afirming the legal positi on. 30. M ore so, it is undisputed that certain employes made representation s to the KVS before their superannuation , seeking the benefits under the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme , therefore, their claims cannot be brushed aside on the ground of delay and laches. 31. In this backdrop, we may note the observations of the learned Co -ordinate Bench of this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Namrata Semwal , 2024:DHC:2896 -DB , reading thus: ³ . From the aforesaid extracts of the impugned order, it clearly emerges that on the one hand, there is no option of the respondent for being covered under the CPF Scheme after 01.09.198 available and on the other hand, there are representations made by her right from 193 requesting the petitioners to include her name under the GPF (Pens ion) Scheme. Even though, learned counsel for the petitioners is corect in urging that as held in Jaspal Kaur (supra) , the mere absence of the option form on the record may not always be fatal, as an inference can also be drawn from the contemporary docum ents including payslips, the fact remains that the respondent had al along been representing for including her name under the GPF (Pension) Scheme as per OM dated 01.09.1988. In the light of this distinguishing factors, where representations were being al l along made by the respondent W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 24 of 70 for being included under the GPF (Pension) Scheme, the ratio of the decision in Jaspal Kaur (supra) would not be aplicable to the present case. There is absolutely no explanation by the petitioners as to why those representa tions submitted in 193 and 194 were not rejected if any such option to be governed by the CPF Scheme was available in the records of the SHWLWLRQHUV´ 32. Furthermore, in judgment dated 29.10.2024 in W .P. 20091/2022, titled Union of India & Ors. v. C.V.L. Anapurna , the High Court of M adras held as under: «7KHJURXQGUHDOLWLHVRIDV as present canot lose sight of. The private respondents are al in service and have been making representations before the employer regularly. As we ha ve already indicated, it was unecesary to even require them to make representations as their very O.M . dated 01.09.198 requires Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan to efect transition to the GPF Scheme. This has not been done in the case of the private respon dents. 42. Hence, for a default comitted by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, the employees canot sufer to say that their representations and the institution of the aplications before the CAT were hit by the bar of limitation. This submision does not apeal to us at all. Hence we find that the ratio of the decisions cited by M r.Srinivasan, are entirely distinguishable as on the facts of those cases and the facts and legalities of the present mater. 43. At the risk of repetition, we must reiterate that O.M .dated 01.09.198 was by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan itself puting into motion a scheme of transition from CPF to GPF and providing expresly that it is only if the option had been exercised fo r continuance that the employees would be W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 25 of 70 retained in the CPF Scheme. There is hence no merit or we may even say fairnes in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan taking the present stand. They are also seen to have complied with the orders in the cases of many others similarly placed employees and hence we see no justification for the present private respondents being denied the same benefit. 33. For the employe(s) who made belated representation s post - retirement, to disallow their claims on the ground of delay would be to create a situation of disparity amongst the employes in receiving different post -retiral benefits having served in the same organization. The same therefore, should not be allow ed, especially keping in view that the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme which was a beneficial scheme in tended for the welfare of the employes . 34. The judgment in the case of M .K. Sarkar (supra) does not assist the KVS as that case involved fundamentally diferent fa cts. In M .K. Sarkar (supra), there was no deeming provision which would have automatically switched the employes over to the new scheme. Instead, the employes were given an option to switch over to the new scheme in place of continuing under the CPF Scheme. The