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 employe in the said case was aforded such an opportunity on eight ocasions over a period of 22 years , and still he did not opt for the new scheme and continued under the CPF Scheme. It was in this context that the Supreme Court held that the employe therein, having ben aw are of the option for nearly 22 years , could not at such a belated stage be permitted to assert a right to exercise the same. Acordingly, the petition was held to be filed after an inordinate delay. The present case is distinguishable as it involves a de ming provision that W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 26 of 70 automatically brings employes under the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme unless they consciously opt out within the stipulated time. 35. Therefore, the preliminary objection of delay and laches raised by the KVS is hereby rejected. The legal fiction created by the OM s, the beneficial nature of the pension scheme, the continuing cause of action in pension matters, and the consistent judicial precedents , all support the maintainability of these OAs/writ petitions despite the delay involved. Delay and laches are, no doubt, significant factors that merit consideration , however, in the present circumstances, as the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme being a beneficial scheme intended for the welfare of employes across all three categories and considering the specific legal context applicable to each category, the claim of the KVS employes cannot be rejected solely on the ground of delay and laches. 36. Having disposed of the preliminary objection, we now turn to examine the merits of each category of employes. CATEGORY -A W .P.(C) Nos. 3172/2019, 2113/2020, 9479/2020, 1440/2022, 10818/2022, 12211/2023, 748/2024, 766/2024, 11077/2020, 16726/2023, 11465/2023, 10278/2020, 13002/2021, 5718/2024, 9581/2024, 10032/2024, W .P (C) No. 50/2024 and Respondent Nos. 73 & 74 in W.P.(C) 14455/2021. 37. The factual matrix in this category of petitions is similar, inasmuch as the petitioners -employes claim that they did not opt to remain under the CPF Scheme and yet the KVS placed them under the W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 27 of 70 same instead of the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme. SUBM ISIONS ON BEHALF OF THE EM PLOYES OF THE KVS 38. The learned counsels on behalf of the employes of the KVS submitted that none of the employes falling under Category A, had had exercised the option to continue under the CPF Scheme within the period pres cribed in the KVS OM dated 01.09.19 88 and , therefore, by virtue of the deeming provision contained in paragraph 3 of the said OM , such employes automatically switched over to the GPF -cum - Pension Scheme . The learned counsels submitted that acordingly, the employes should have received the benefits under the GPF -cum - Pension Scheme after the cut -of date of 31.01.1989 , as stipulated in KVS OM dated 01.09.1988. 39. W hile placing strong reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in S.L. Verma (supra) and Shashi Kiran (supra) , the learned counsels submitted that in S. L. Verma (supra), the Supreme Court has held that the OM dated 01.05.1987 created a legal fiction whereby all CPF beneficiaries in service as on 01.01.1986 would be demed to have switched ove r to the Pension Scheme unless they specifically opted to continue under CPF by 30.09.1987, therefore, only when an employe consciously opted to continue under the CPF Scheme would such employes not come under the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme . 40. They further submitted that in Shashi Kiran (supra), the Supreme Court granted pension to all the employes ± whether they had not exercised any option at all, and if they did, irrespective of the date on which they exercised the option. W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 28 of 70 41. They submitted that in the de cision dated 04.01.2018 of the Rajasthan High Court in Civil W .P. No. 5976/2017, titled M .S. Panwar v. CAT & Ors , while relying upon S. L. Verma (supra), the Rajasthan High Court granted the benefit of the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme to a KVS teacher, which fur ther strengthens the case of the employes, and acordingly, the same cannot be denied to the present set of employes. 42. The learned counsel s further contended that it was at the time of framing and implementing the Pension Scheme that the concerned authorities should have considered the overall magnitude of the Scheme , which includes the number of employes and the possible impact on the management of the fund s. Hence, the contention of the KVS that the extension of the benefit of the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme to the employes would now impose a financial burden on the KVS is devoid of merit. SUBM ISION ON BEHALF OF THE KVS 43. Per contra , M r. U.N. Singh, the learned counsel for the KVS, urged that once an employe has consciously availed the benefits under a particular scheme, they cannot, thereafter, invoke or seek recourse to any deming provision to claim benefits under another scheme. He submitted that regular contributi ons to the CPF Scheme is a clear indication of the fact that such an employe had opted for the CPF Scheme and subsequently, there is no scope for such an employe to claim any right under the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme . In support, he placed reliance upon the decision date d 20.09.2011 of the W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 29 of 70 Full Bench of this Court in LPA No. 708/2002, titled R.D. Gupta & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. 44. He further submitted that the OM dated 01.05.1987 and the subsequent KVS OM dated 01.09.1988 were in the knowledge of the employes, despite which they had continued to contribute towards the CPF Scheme by allowing deductions from their salaries on a monthly basis. He submitted that now , therefore, the employes can not turn around and ple ad ignorance about the OM s in order to claim the benefit under the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme . 45. He submitted that the KVS is equipped with suficient evidence , though secondary in nature, which clearly indicates that the employes were knowingly opted for the CPF by making their contribution to the CPF acount s and continu ing to do so during their service tenure and even acepting the CPF funds at the time of retirement. He submitted that the employes are , therefore, estopped from rais ing the claim that their case is covered under the under the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme by virtue of OM dated 01.09.198. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors v. Jaspal Kaur & Anr (2007) 6 SCC 13. 46. The learned counsel submitted that the decision in Shashi Kiran (supra) , as relied upon by the employes, would not be applicable to the present batch of petitions as in the said case, the Delhi University had extended multiple opportunities to its employes to exercise the option, whereas in the preset case, the KVS had provided only a single opportunit y to its employes , therefore, W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 30 of 70 avoiding any confusion as every employe had a clear choice as to either be an opte under the CPF Scheme or not. REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF THE EM PLOYES OF THE KVS 47. In rejoinder , the learned counsels for the employes submitted that the KVS cannot derive any benefit from the decision in Jaspal Kaur (supra) as the said case was a judgment in personum and was decided on its peculiar facts, without taking into consideration the issues , as are discussed in S. L. Verma (supra), that is, by virtue of the deming fiction the employes were deemed to have come over into the under the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme , which a fortiori , implied that they ceased to be governed by the CPF Scheme. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 48. W e have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record . 49. It is undisputed that till 01.01.1986, all the employes of the KV S were covered by the CPF Scheme. The KVS mutatis mutandis adopted the OM dated 01.05.1987 vide its OM dated 01.09.1988 , thereby introduc ing the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme for its employes . 50. The petitioner s-employes in the present Category A claim that by virtue of the KVS OM dated 01.09.1988, as they were in service prior to 01.01.1986 and continued post the said date as well , despite being CPF beneficiaries , they would be deemed to have switched over to the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme, unless the y opted to remain under the CPF Scheme. 51. W hile the KVS does not dispute the mandate of the OMs, it W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 31 of 70 contends that the present set of employes are not entitled to be governed by the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme as they had continued to make their contributions towards the CPF Scheme and as had the KVS, and the benefits thereof have already ben gleaned by the petitioners, indicating that they had opted to remain under the CPF Scheme. The KVS further contends that the employes cannot raise this issue belatedly, especially when most of them have retired and have prefered their claim s thereafter. 52. From the KVS OM dated 01.09.1988, which has ben reproduced hereinabove, what emanates is that the employes who were in service on 01.01.1986 and who continued in servic e as on the date of the issuance of the said OM ³will be demed to have come over to the Pension Scheme ´ and if they desired to continue under the CPF Scheme, they were required to exercise an option for the same, which was to be conveyed to the concerned Head of Ofice/Principal by 31.01.1989. In the event no such option was received by the Head of Ofice/Principal by the aforesaid date, and in the KVS ofice through them by 28.02.1989, the employes would be ³demed to have come over to the Pension Scheme ´. The KVS, in acordance with its OM , had invited options from employes only once till 31.01.1989. 53. Admittedly, the petitioner -employes in this category were in service as on 01.01.1986 and continued thereafter. The KVS is unable to show that they exerci sed the option to remain in CPF, but relies upon their conduct as proof of exercise of such option did not exercise any option to continue under the CPF Scheme. W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 32 of 70 54. Thus, in view of the above, the key point for resolution before us is whether the petitioner -employes have a valid claim to the benefit under the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme, or would be governed by the CPF Scheme. 55. To appreciate the legal context of an employe not having exercised the option to continue under the CPF Scheme, reference may be made to the decision in S. L. Verma (supra), wherein it was held as under: ³7. The Central Government, in our opinion, proceeded on a basic misconception. By reason of the said office memorandum dated 1-5-1987 a legal fiction was created. Only when an employee consciously opted for to continue with the CPF Scheme, he would not become a member of the Pension Scheme. It is not disputed that the said respondents did not give their options by 30 -9-198 7. In that view of the mater Respondents 1 to 13 in view of the legal fiction created, became the members of the Pension Scheme. Once they became the members of the Pension Scheme, Regulation 16 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees Regulations, 198) had become ipso facto aplicable in their case also. It may be that they had made an option to continue with the CPF Scheme at a later stage but if by reason of the legal fiction created, they became members of the Pe nsion Scheme, the question of their reverting to the CPF would not arise. Respondent 14 has corectly arived at a conclusion that an anomaly would be created and in fact the said purported option on the part of Respondents 1 to 13 was illegal when a reque st was made by Respondent 14 to the Union of India for grant of aproval so that al those employees shall come within the purview of the Pension Scheme. In our opinion, the M inistry of Finance proceeded on W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 3 of 70 a wrong premise that the Pension Scheme was not in existence and it was a new one. Two legal fictions, as noticed hereinbefore, were created, one by reason of the memorandum, and another by reason of the acceptance of the recomendations of the Fourth Central Pay Comision with efect from 1-1-1986. In terms of such legal fictions, it will bear repetition to state, Respondents 1 to 13 would be deemed to have switched over to the Pension Scheme, which a fortiori would mean that they no longer remained in the CPF scheme. ´ (Emphasis suplied) 56. In view of the above , it is distinctly clear that the µlegal ILFWLRQ¶ created an automatic switch to the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme for all eligible employes. Notably, at the time of joining of the employes in the present category , they automatically became members of the CPF Scheme, which existed prior to 01.01.1986, however, under the OM dated 01.05.1987 and the KVS OM dated 01.09.1988, employees had to exercise a fresh option to remain under the said scheme. It was only upon an HPSOR\HH¶ s conscious and timely exercis e of the option to continue in the CPF Scheme , would such employe remain in the CPF Scheme and not become a member of the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme. However, failure to exercise the said option within the prescribed time limit resulted in the employe being deemed to have automatically switched to the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme by operation of the legal fiction. 57. The decision in S. L. Verma (supra) has also ben relied upon in the judgments dated 04.01.2018 and 22.10.2021 of the Rajasthan High Court in W .P.(C) 597 6.2017 and W .P.(C) 14158/2019 titled W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 34 of 70 M .S. Panwar v. Central Administrative Tribunal and Gajendra Singh Rathore v. Central Administrative Tribunal , respectively, both of which stand afirmed by the Supreme Court. 58. Furthermore, in this context, we may also refer to the decision ofthe Supreme Court in Shashi Kiran (supra) , which deals with the OM dated 01.05.1987 as implemented by the University of Delhi for its employes. The University of Delhi had issued a Notification dated 25.05.1987 to implement the OM dated 01.05.1987 and extend ed the benefit of the GPF -cum -Pension to employes, granting them an opportunity to exercise their option in terms of the paragraph 5 of the Notification dated 25.05.1987 by 30.09. 1987, which was subsequently extended till 31.01.1999 by way of several extension s. 59. As the OM dated 01.05.1987 had specifically provided that the last date for exercising the option was 30.09.1987 and had not grant ed any further time beyond that date to switch over to the GPF -cum - Pension , the University Grant Commission (UGC) opined that the University of Delhi could not have extended the time for exercising the option on its own by way of the various extensions. 60. In view of the said stand taken by the UGC, several employes of the University approached this Court claiming appropriate reliefs. This Court segregated the employes before it into 3 categories , and the issue regarding the category of employes who had not exercised any option at all, was cases in R.N. Virmani & Ors. v. University of Delhi & Anr ., 2014:DHC:2285, wherein the learned Single Judge held that such employes were demed to have ³come over ´ to the GPF - cum -Pension Scheme. The University of Delhi filed an LPA against W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 35 of 70 the same, and the said batch of appeals was refered to as the RN Virmani batch of cases. 61. It is relevant to note that the factual position of the employes under the present category in this petition, that is, Category A, is similar to that of the RN Virmani batch of cases , as the said batch dealt with those employes who had never exercised the option to remain under the CPF Scheme, yet continued to be governed by it and make contributions under the same. 62. W ith respect to the RN Virmani batch of cases, the Supreme Court , in the case of Shashi Kiran (supra) ,observed as under: - ´A. R.N.Virmani batch of cases 17. The reasoning that weighed with the learned Single Judge was: (R.N. Virmani case, SC OnLine Del para 14) ´14. In my view, the answer to the question: as to whether employees, who had not isued any overt comunication with regard to his/her desire to continue with the CPF Scheme, stod covered by the Pension Scheme; would largely depend upon the provisions of OM dated 1-5-1987, itself. 14.1. It is not in dispute before me that OM dated 1-5-1987 was adopted by the University of Delhi vide Notification dated 25 -5-1987 read with Notification dated 4-6- 1987, pursuant to an approval received in that behalf from its Vice -Chancelor. Therefore, much would depend, in my opinion, upon the language of the relevant clause of OM dated 1-5-1987. The said OM clearly aplies to al employees who were CPF beneficiaries on 1-1-1986. Clause 3.1 read with Clause 3.2 is plainly indicative of the fact that al l such employees, who are CPF beneficiaries, shal be deemed, to have, come over to Pension Scheme unles W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 36 of 70 the employee(s) concerned submitted his or her option to continue with the CPF Scheme. This option had to be submitted in the prescribed form to the Head of Ofice concerned by 30 -9-1987. In case, no option was received by the Head of Ofice by 30 -9- 1987, employees were deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme. Therefore, by legal fiction once, the deeming clause kicked -in, those who did not submi t their option form for continuation under the CPF Scheme stod covered by the Pension Scheme. ³ 18. To arive at the conclusion as mentioned above, the learned Single Judge relied inter alia upon the following pasages from the decision of this Court in Union of India v. S.L. Verma: (SC p. 5 -56, paras 4 & 7) ´4. The Central Government as also Respondent 14 Bureau of Indian Standards have proceeded on some legal misconception that it was obligatory on the part of the said employees to give a positive opt ion for the said purpose. For the first time on 2-2-19, Respondent 14 requested the Union of India for grant of another chance to the respondents to switch over to pension scheme stating that they purported to have exercised their option for CPF Scheme on the cut -of date. x x x 7. The Central Government, in our opinion, proceeded on a basic misconception. By reason of the said Ofice M emorandum dated 1-5-1987 a legal fiction was created. Only when an employee consciously opted for to continue with th e CPF Scheme, he would not become a member of the Pension Scheme. It is not disputed that the said respondents did not give their options by 30 -9-1987. In that view of the mater Respondents 1 to 13 in view of the legal fiction created, became members of the Pension Scheme. Once they became the W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 37 of 70 member of the Pension Scheme, Regulation 16 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees Regulations, 198) had become ipso facto aplicable in their case also. It may be that they had made an option to continue with the CPF Scheme at a later stage but if by reason of the legal fiction created, they became members of the Pension Scheme, the question of their reverting to the CPF would not arise. Respondent 14 has corectly arived at a conclusion that an anomaly would be created and in fact the said purported option on the part of Respondents 1 to 13 was illegal when a request was made by Respondent 14 to the Union of India for grant of aproval so that al those employees shall come within the purview of the Pension Scheme. In our opinion, the M inistry of Finance proceeded on a wrong premise that the Pension Scheme was not in existence and it was a new one. Two legal fictions, as noticed hereinbefore, were created, one by reason of th e memorandum, and another by reason of the acceptance of the recomendations of the Fourth Central Pay Comision with efect from 1-1-1986. In terms of such legal fictions, it will bear repetition to state, Respondents 1 to 13 would be deemed to have swit ched over to the pension scheme, which a fortiori would mean that they no longer remained in the CPF scheme. ³ (emphasis suplied by the learned Single Judge) 19. The argument made by the respondents was dealt with as under: (R.N. Virmani case, SC OnLine Del para 16) ´16. The argument raised before me by the respondents, which veered towards aprobation, was based on the fact that petitioners had continued to contribute under the CPF Scheme. This submision W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 38 of 70 would not cut much ice with me, having regard to the plain terms of OM dated 1-5- 1987. If, the cover under the Pension Scheme, gets trigered with a efect from 30 -9-1987, the contribution by an employee and its receipt by the employer clearly proceeds on a misconception of the provisions of OM dated 1-5-1987. As a mater of fact, this very argument was repeled by the Supreme Court, in S.L. Verma case, and I think, for god reason. Consequently, there is no rom for entertaining such an argument. The relevant observations made in para 7, specific to thi s aspect, are, once again, extracted hereinafter: (SCC p. 56) ¶7. . It may be that they had made an option to continue with the CPF Scheme at a later stage but if by reason of the legal fiction created, they became members of the Pension Scheme, the question of their reverting to the CPF would not arise. µ ³ 20. It was, therefore, directed: (R.N. Virmani case, SC OnLine Del ) ´20. Having regard to the above discusion, the respondent University of Delhi/Coleges concerned will be entitled to recoup their contribution under the CPF Scheme, if not already recouped, with simple interest @ 8% p.a. ³ The petitions were thus alowed. 63. The Supreme Court further held as under: - 28. R.N. Virmani batch of cases: ( Shashi Kiran case , SC OnLine Del para 19) ´19. This Court is of opinion that the submisions of the University, the apelant, in regard to the Virmani µs order, have no force. There is no denial and there can be none ² that the nature of the scheme contemplated by 1-5-1987 notification was to ensur e that only those W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 39 of 70 wishing to continue in the CPF scheme had to opt to do so. A default in that regard, meant that the employee not filing his option (to continue in CPF) was deemed to have ³FRPH RYHU´ or migrated to the Pension Scheme. The University and the oficial respondents (UGC, Central Government, etc.) had urged that the petitioners in the Virmani group are deemed to have accepted the CPF benefits, because they alowed deductions from their monthly salaries during the interegnum and permiting Pen sion Scheme benefits would not be fair; in the same breath it was urged that there was delay. This Court is of opinion that the University ² and the respondents are relying on contradictory pleas. If they urge that the true interpretation of the 1987 circu lar meant that anyone not furnishing an option to continue in the CPF scheme is deemed to have opted for the Pension Scheme (as the Virmani group undoubtedly did) there is no way they can succeed on the ground of laches or estopel. If plain gramatical me aning of the language of the M ay 1987 OM were to be given, al those who do not opt would automaticaly be borne in the Pension Scheme. Such being the position, the argument that the petitioners in Virmani alowed deduction of CPF amounts from their salary , canot be argued against them. CPF schemes typicaly require employees to comit greater amounts than in GPF scheme, on a monthly basis. That these staff members alowed higher amounts, which were held under a scheme (and which earned interest), the bene fit of which had not accrued and was not available to them till the date of superanuation, canot be urged against them. Likewise, the question of laches would not arise, because at the most, pension would not be alowed for the entire period, given that in maters of pension (see W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 40 of 70 Union of India v. Tarsem Singh ) there is a continuing cause of action. Therefore, we find no infirmity with the learned Single Judge µs order, in Virmani case. ³ (emphasis in original) The apeals were thus dismised ³ xxxxx 38. According to the Notification dated 1-5- 1987 two situations were contemplated. First, the deeming provision in terms of which the employee concerned was taken to have ´come over ³ to GPF. The second situation being where a conscious option was exercis ed before the cut -of date to continue to be under CPF. R.N. Virmani batch of cases was therefore rightly allowed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, as no conscious option was exercised by the cut -off date. Consequently, the employees concerned must be deemed to have ´come RYHU´WR GPF. Logicaly, it would be imaterial whether the employee concerned continued to make contribution asuming himself to be covered under CPF, even though contributions were made by the authoriti es concerned. The benefit was therefore rightly granted in favour of the employees and the entire contribution was directed to be refunded. The University has chosen not to apeal against that decision and thus the mater has atained finality .´ (Emphasis suplied) 64. W hat is evident from the above is that the petitioner -employes in the present Category A are squarely covered by the decision in Shashi Kiran (supra), which emphasizes that as the present employes did not exercise the option to continue under CPF Scheme by the cut -of date, consequently they must be demed to have µFRPH W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 41 of 70 RYHU¶ to the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme. It would be immaterial whether the em ployes, or that even the KVS, continued to make contribution under the CPF Scheme, as the employes were automatically demed to have come over to the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme by operation of the legal fiction, regardless of their subsequent actions. 65. In the R.N. Virmani batch of cases , as the University of Delhi did not prefer an appeal before the Supreme Court, the matter with respect to the present category of employes therein attained finality. 66. W e may further note that a Co -ordinate Bench of this Court in Anil Luthra (supra) , considered th is issue in respect of DTC employe s. After refering to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in R.D. Gupta & Ors . v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr ., 2011:DHC:4832 -DB, which had upheld the decision in DTC v. M adhu Bhushan Anand , 2010 (172) DLT 668, and the judgment s of the Supreme Court in S.L. Verma (supra) and Shashi Kiran (supra) , the Co -ordinate Bench held as under: - ´29. Cumulative impact of S.L. Verma and Shashi Kiran 29.1 Thus, after S.L. Verma and Shashi Kiran, there can be no doubt about the legal position that, if an employee does not exercise any option to continue under the CPF scheme within the time stipulated in that regard, whether it wa s under the 1987 OM or the 192 Office Order of the DTC, he would ipso facto be a deemed pension opte. The availment of CPF benefits by him, thereafter, is irelevant and he can, at the highest, be directed to return the CPF benefits, if necesary with in terest. Further, even if he W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 42 of 70 were to refer to himself as a CPF beneficiary thereafter, or even if he were to state, in a written comunication, that he was not a pension opte, it would make no difference, as the character of the employee as a deemed pension opte is by operation of law, in terms of para 9 of the 192 DTC Ofice Order. A consequence which arises by inexorable operation of law canot be wished away by asertions to the contrary. 29.2 In view of this position, even if it were to be presumed th at para 19 of the judgment of the Ful Bench of this Court in R.D. Gupta treats the acceptance, by the employee, of CPF benefits, as suficient to disentitle him to the benefits of the Pension Scheme, that position can no longer be said to hold god in vie w of the decisions in S.L. Verma and Shashi Kiran. Shashi Kiran, we may note, is a recent decision, rendered as late as in 202, and there was no occasion, therefore, for the position of law enunciated in Shashi Kiran to have been within the knowledge of the Ful Bench when it decided R.D. Gupta, or the Division Bench of this Court when it decided M adhu Bhushan . xxxxx 36. W e, therefore, are of the firm opinion that after the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shashi Kiran , no scope remains for debate on the isue in controversy in the present case. An employee who fails to exercise the option, as envisaged in Clause 3 of the DTC Ofice Order dated 27 November 192, on or before 195, ipso facto, switches over to the Pensio n Scheme, by operation of para 9 of the said Notification. There is no posible comeback. The mere fact that the employee as wel as the DTC continue to contribute to the CPF and the employee may have even earned the benefits of such contribution at the ti me of his retirement would make no difference. ³ W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 43 of 70 (Emphasis Suplied) 67. In so far as the reliance of the learned counsel for the KVS on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jaspal Kaur (supra ) is concerned, he had argued that the inability to produce the option forms may not always be fatal as an inference can be drawn from secondary evidence available on record, such as pay slips etc., that an employe had agred to opt for the CPF Scheme . He submitted that from the conduct of the petitioners in the prese nt category, it can be infered that they had opted to continue under the CPF Scheme. 68. However, Jaspal Kaur (supra) is distinguishable inasmuch as in that case, extensive secondary evidence was available to establish that the employe had opted for the CPF Scheme. The Supreme Court specifically noted that there was a note in the Service Book stating that the CPF acount was allowed under intimation to the employe , multiple letters from KVS showing revised CPF ac count numbers with the HPSOR\HH¶ s name appearing consisten tly, the HPSOR\HH¶ s own letter dated 15.03.1997 acknowledging that she was contributing towards CPF with a specific acount number, and crucially, the last pay certificate clearly indicating that she had ³opted for the CPF Scheme ´. The Supreme Court held that this ³ample material ´ was sufficient to establish the exercise of option despite the original option document not being produced. 69. In contrast, in the present petitions concerning Category A employes, the KVS has not produced any documentary evidence or noting on record to demonstrate that these employes had ever exercised their option to remain under the CPF Scheme by the cut -off W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 4 of 70 date. 70. In C.V.L. Anapurna (supra), with regards to the records produced by the KVS to evidence the continuation of the employes under the CPF Scheme, the M adras High Court observed as under: ³35. However, as we have noted such records fall within the dom ain of control of the petitioners and canot under any circumstances be taken to be expres consent or exercise of option by the private respondents. The private respondents have brought on record several instances where orders of the CAT as well the High Court have in identical circumstances held in favour of the employees and the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan has complied with those orders. There is no reason for the petitioners to have adopted a divergent stand in the present PDWWHUV´ 71. Even otherwise, even if such documentary evidence existed, it cannot overide the legal fiction created by the KVS OM dated 01.09.1988. In view of the binding precedent in S.L. Verma (supra), once the cut -of date was crossed without any option being exercised to continue under the CPF Scheme, the employes would be demed to have automatically come over to the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme by operation of law. No subsequent conduct or belated exercise of option can reverse this legal consequence. 72. In this regard it would also be apposite to refer to Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Central Administrative Tribunal Bench & Anr. , 2023:AHC:199785 -DB, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court, wherein the Allahabad High Court held as under: W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 45 of 70 ³ «0HUH continuance of deduct ion under CPF may itself not cause any legal efect as contemplated by the Supreme Court in the above described decision. Even change / revision of CPF number, not linked to prior aplication made by the respondent would be inconsequential. 19. That we note, wherever, statutory law prescribes a particular way to do a specific thing, the thing may other be done in that way or not at al. Though, we have not intended to elevate the status of the Ofice M emorandum dated 01.09.198 to that of sta tutory law and we recognize the same and as Executive Order only, yet, in absence of any contrary statutory or other law or Executive Order shown to exist. W e do not see how the respondent may be seen to have opted to be retained under the CPF when the Uni on has failed to establish that he had submited the aplication on the prescribed form in the prescribed maner. In absence of that aplication made by the respondent, he had migrated to GPF scheme, by operation of law. 20. Then, once that consequence ar ose in law, it full efect could not be avoided by either party on the evidentiary rule of acquiescence. Once, by law, the respondent was admited to the GPF scheme, he could not be denied its benefit merely because he may not have resisted CPF contributio ns continued to be made thereafter. To alow for such contingency to arise / exist would be to read a new clause into the Ofice M emorandum dated 01.09.198 i.e. an employee may (notwithstanding) anything also, not migrate an employee to GPF scheme and tha t employed may content to the same. Clearly that cause is not SHUPLVVLEOH´ 73. Therefore, in light of the views expressed by us herein before, we find ourselves unable to sustain the Orders passed by the learned W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 46 of 70 Tribunal dismissing the OAs . Acordingly, the present petitions filed by the petitioner -employes stand allowed subject to the conditions as stated herein below in the concluding section . 74. Further, W .P.(C) 10278/2020 and W .P.(C)11077/2020 filed on behalf of the KVS, accordingly, stand dismissed. 75. Before concluding our discussion on Category A, we dem it necessary to separately address W .P.(C) 9479/2020, as it involve s rather distinct factual circumstances that require individual consideration. W .P.(C) 9479/2020 76. In the present petition, the issue that arises for our consideration is whether the respondent -employe , who came to be governed by the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme vide KVS OM dated 01.09.1988 , and was acordingly allotted a GPF number by the KVS, could be reverted by the KVS to the CPF Scheme , after thre years. 77. The learned Tribunal allowed her case based on the ³deming clause ´ in Para 3 of the KVS OM dated 01.09.1988. The Learned Tribunal was also convinced by evidence showing that she was initially allotted a GPF acount number along with thre other employes, had GPF deductions made for thre years, and had raised representations about iregularities in her acount as early as 1989. Her case was also distinguished from Jaspal Kau r (supra) , noting that there was no evidence that she had exercised any option to remain under the CPF scheme . 78. The employe has claimed that she never opted to continue W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 47 of 70 under CPF Scheme and , therefore, falls under Category µ$¶ . M ore so, she has claimed tha t in the light of deming provision contained in the KVS OM dated 01.09.1988, she was automatically entitled to the benefit s under the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme. 79. Conversely , the KVS has contended that the said employe was well aware that she was a CPF opte and her own share as well as the PDQDJHPHQW¶V share had ben deposited regularly. It was further submitted that the change in her PF acount number, was on acount of her transfer in the year 1992. 80. Having considered the respective submissions on behalf of the parties and perused the record, we may note that the employe has claimed that she was initially brought under the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme , as is evident from the allotment of GPF Acount No. 3736 pursuant to the Order dated 08.04.1986 issued by the KV S, and the recording of the said acount number in her service book. The deductions made towards the GPF subscription for a continuous period of about thre years, till August 1989, further strengthens the plea that the employe was being governed by the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme. 81. In the year 1989 , however, her account was converted into a CPF acount by allotting a new number. Upon learning of this, she promptly lodged a representation on 29.09.1989 before the Acounts Oficer, KVS, seking corection of rec ords and restoration of her GPF -cum -Pension account. 82. In the present case, it is suficient to note that the employe had joined the KVS as a TGT (Biology) on 27.09.1984 and undisputedly, W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 48 of 70 did not exercise any option to continue under the CPF Scheme, therefore, she clearly falls under Category A. Acordingly , by virtue of the deming provision, she should have ben given the benefit of the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme . 83. Relevantly, the KVS itself had treated her as a member of the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme , allotted her a GPF acount number, and even made deductions toward her GPF acount for thre years. For reasons unknown, the KVS later converted her account to CPF on its own, without any cogent rea son. 84. Acordingly, in light of the discussion and analysis contained in the preceding paragraphs, the present petition filed by KVS , being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. CATEGORY -B: W .P.(C) NOS . 2676/2020, 14455/2021 AND W .P. (C) 11077/2020 (respondent nos. 7, 9 and 11 falling in Category B) 85. Now, coming to Category B, which comprises of the employes of the KVS who had initially opted to continue under the CPF Scheme in pursuan ce of the KVS OM dated 01.09.1988, but subsequently sought to switch over to the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme . For that purpose , they submitted representations to the KVS , which came to be dismissed. In some petitions, the representations were made prior to the SHWLWLRQHUV¶ retirement, whereas in others, they were made subsequent to their retirement. The dismissal of their representations by the KVS was challenged before the learned Tribunal, but the same was also rejected. Faced with such dismissals, they have approached W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 49 of 70 this Court. SUBM ISIONS ON BEHALF OF THE EM PLOYES OF THE KVS 86. For the employes falling in Category B, the learned counsels submitted that the employes had a right to subsequently changeover from the CPF Scheme to the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme , even though they had earlier given their option to continue under the CPF Scheme. They submitted that the employes had also prefered representations in th is regard, seking a switch over from the CPF Scheme to the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme . In support, the y relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Shashi Kiran (supra) to submit that in said case, the Supreme Court had upheld the right of an employe , albeit in a diferent organization , to sek a switch over to the GPF -cum - Pension Scheme , even though they had consciously opted to be under CPF Scheme , on principle s of parity or equality and as these schemes were designed for employe welfare . 87. 87. The learne d counsels placed reliance on the judgment of the M adras High Court in N Subramanian vs. The Comissioner KVS , 2017 SCC OnLine M ad 12661, to submit that the petitions are maintainable even though filed belatedly, urging that in the said case the M adras High Court had entertained the petition even after the retirement of petitioner therein, as he had earlier addressed a few representations to authorities seking conversion from the CPF Scheme to the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme, notwithstanding that such representations were not required or envisaged in view of the deming clause. W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 50 of 70 88. The learned counsels submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the KVS had mutatis mutandis adopted the OM dated 01.05.1987 issued by M inistry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Pension and Pensioners ¶ W elfare) , but changed the cut -of date to exercise the option from 30.09.1987 to 31.01.1989 . They submitted that the KVS could not have altered this essential character of the OM dated 01.05.1987 unilaterally by extending the period of the cut -of date , which was not permissible and is non -est in the eyes of law. In support , reliance was placed on Ashok Service Centre & Ors. v. State of Orissa , (1983) 2 SCC 82. 89. The learned counsels further submitted that this Court in N.C. Bakshi v. Union of India & Ors. , 2014:DHC:2274 , held that the cut - of date mentioned in the OM dated 01.05.1987, that is, 30.09.1987, was a sacrosanct date within which the option had to be exercised by the employes , which could not have ben extended by the employer , and after the expiry of stipulated period, an employe would, by virtue of the legal fiction automatically come over to the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme . 90. The learned counsels submitted that the fai lure of KVS in granting the employes the benefits under the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme has led to wide disparities in the pensionary benefits of the employes covered under the two pensionary schemes, even though all the employes performed the same duties. It was further submitted that while the CPF Scheme provided a lump sum benefit on retirement , which include their own contributions, this amount was not indexed to inflation. W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 51 of 70 91. To fortify their plea, the learned counsels have placed strong reliance on the decision in Gurmail Kaur (supra) and Ram Dayal (supra). SUBM ISIONS ON BEHALF OF THE KVS 92. Per contra , the learned counsel for the KVS submitted that the employes , of their own volition , had opted to continue under the CPF Scheme in pursuance of the OM dated 01.09.1988, knowing fully well that the option , once exercised , is final. He submitted that, therefore, the employes who are belatedly attempting to switch over from the CPF Scheme to the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme, after voluntarily opting for the same, and that too after their retirement, cannot be permitted to do so as once such an option was exercised, it attained finality. He submitted that thus, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 93. It is to be noted that the Category B employes have claimed that by virtue of the decision in Shashi Kiran (supra), they too ought to have ben granted the option to switch over from the CPF Scheme to the alternative GPF -cum -Pension Scheme , as the employe es of other organizations were permitted to change their option belatedly even up to 31.12.2003, that is, prior to the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Comission. 94. To appreciate the pleas raised by the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision in the Shashi Kiran batch of cases , as categorized by the Supreme Court in Shashi Kiran (supra), which W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 52 of 70 consisted of employes who had exercised the option to remain under the CPF Scheme by the original cut -of date under the OM dated 01.05.198 7, but were demanding that they be given a further option to switch over to the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme . 95. In the said batch of cases, the factual context was that the petitioners therein had consciously opted for CPF benefits; however, their grievance was one of discriminatory exclusion. W hen they sought to exercise their option to switch over to the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme , the respondents refused to extend the time for doing so, even though employes in other institutions such as IIT Kanpur, the Department of Atomic Energy, and Council for Scientific and Industrial Research had ben permitted by their respecti ve organizations to exercise such option up to 31.12.2003. The Central Government, in such cases, had allowed the changeover prior to the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, which thereafter introduced the CPF benefits universally for all those employe es later, universally with efect from 01.01.2004. 96. The learned Single Judge of this Court had dismissed the Shashi Kiran batch of petitions , holding that the employes had consciously chosen to remain in the CPF Scheme , and the circular granting extensions did not contemplate any ³come -back ´ situation for such employes. Aggrieved thereby, the employes challenged the said decision by way of LPA No. 410/2014, titled Shashi Kiran &Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. , which was disposed of vide a common judgment dated 24.08.2016 . The Co -ordinate Bench of this Court , while allowing the said appeals, observed that at the time when W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 53 of 70 the Shashi Kiran batch of appellants had exercised their option, they were in service, and neither the appellants nor the respondents could have visualized the drastic fall in interest rates, which substantially undermined the CPF option and diminished the lump sum CPF benefits that these appellants would receive. It was further held that neith er the Central Government nor the UGC had given a single reason as to why the option to switch over to the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme was extended till 31.12.2003 in several other autonomous institutions but denied to the appellants. It was held that this failure to explain the reasons which compelled the Government to adopt such a different approach of granting extensions clearly amount ed to discrimination. Therefore, the denial of the right to switch over to the GPF -cum -Pension Scheme in the Shashi Kiran batch of cases was held to be unsustainable. 97. The above mentioned decision of this Court came under challenge before the Supreme Court in Shashi Kiran (supra) . The Supreme Court afirmed the view taken in the LPA by the Delhi High Court , and observed as under: ´49. The differential treatment aforded to those 2469 employees as against the employees in Shashi Kiran batch of cases, was not founded on any rationale. No justifiable reason was coming forth. If those 2469 employees could be af orded chance to exercise an option of switch over to GPF, even though they had consciously opted to be under CPF, on principle of parity or equality, the case was certainly made out. xxx xxx xxx 52. Considering the circumstances on record, W .P.(C) 3172/2019 & connected maters Page 54 of 70 in our view, the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court in Shashi Kiran 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 apropriate. ³ 98. W e may note that the Supreme Court ha s categorically held in Shashi Kiran (supra) that the switch over from