IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.18908 of 2025 Reserved on:21.05.2026 Decided on : 30.05.2026 Uploaded on :30.05.2026 Balak Ram Kapil ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and Others …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : M/s Vikas Rathore and Bhupinder Thakur, Advocates. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Panel Counsel. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge By way of the present petition, a challenge has been laid to the impugned judgment dated 28.04.2025, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in OA No.063/95/2021, whereby the claim of the present petitioner qua the grant of General Pension Scheme instead of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) has been rejected. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the written submission furnished by the writ petitioner. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Primary Teacher in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) on 21.7.1983. The petitioner opted for the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme with CPF Account No. CEC- 3477. Thereafter, in response to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Office Memorandum dated 1.9.1988, on exercise of option dated 27.2.1989, the petitioner continued in the CPF Scheme under a new Account Number 2853. The said account continued till his retirement i.e. 31.12.2014. 4. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the question which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner can be permitted to resile from the option earlier exercised on 27.02.1989. 5. The petitioner is not an illiterate person. The petitioner cannot contend ignorance of the rules and regulations of the department. If the petitioner had not opted for continuation of CPF as per OM dated 01.09.1988, then the petitioner should have objected to the same, when CPF contributions were being made in the monthly pay bills, -3- which were duly reflected in Form No. 16 issued regularly. 6. The allotment of new CPF number, monthly salary bills containing deduction towards CPF, annual statements of every year regarding consolidated balance in CPF and Form 16 for filing income tax are pointers towards the fact that the petitioner was in the CPF Scheme and of his own volition enjoyed the accrued benefits of the CPF Scheme. The petitioner woke up after the lapse of a considerable period i.e. after his retirement, seeking to migrate to the GPF-cum- Pension Scheme. The petitioner kept mum for a long time. 7. From the response filed to the writ petition, it is evident that admissible dues under the CPF Scheme stand paid to the petitioner on his retirement and CPF final payment papers have been signed by the petitioner. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances besides delay there is an acquiescence and waiver on the part of the petitioner. 8. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is evident that an option had been exercised by the petitioner to remain under the CPF Scheme, a fact which was disclosed before the Central Administrative Tribunal by the respondent by way of an -4- application which has been placed on record as Annexure P-7 along with the writ petition. Hence it is evident that the petitioner post-retirement entered into a futile litigation being fully aware of the fact that he had exercised an option to remain in the CPF Scheme. However, the said fact was concealed by the petitioner. 9. The first Original Application bearing No. OA- 063/000822/2018 was filed before the CAT, Chandigarh, which was disposed of vide order dated 09.08.2018 directing the respondents to take a decision qua the claim being made by the petitioner to shift from the CPF Scheme within a period of two months. Vide memorandum dated 10.10.2018, the said request was not accepted, thereafter the petitioner filed a fresh OA No. 63/95/2021. It is against the dismissal of the same that the present petition has been preferred. In both the petitions, material fact qua option having been exercised way back in 1989 by the petitioner to remain in the CPF Scheme has been concealed. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed with costs on account of material suppression of facts which has resulted in un-necessary wastage of judicial time and that of the respondents. However, we refrain from imposing costs keeping in view the -5- fact that the petitioner is a retiree and for the below mentioned reason. 10. The unnecessary litigation in the case at hand has also arisen on account of the routine direction issued by the CAT on the first original application, filed by the petitioner, directing the respondent authority to consider the petitioner’s representation ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation. Neither the Tribunal’s direction to consider the representation without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches. In this respect, it would be appropriate to refer to the Apex Court judgement in Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59. Relevant extract whereof reads as follow:- “14. The order of the Tribunal allowing the first application of respondent without examining the merits, and directing the appellants to consider his representation has given rise to unnecessary litigation and avoidable complications. The ill-effects of such directions have been considered by this Court in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining1 : (SCC pp. 122-23, para 9). “9. The courts/tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly, they assume that a mere direction to consider and -6- dispose of the representation does not involve any ‘decision’ on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realise the consequences of such a direction to ‘consider’. If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to ‘consider’. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obliterated or ignored.” 15. When a belated representation in regard to a “stale” or “dead” issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the “dead” issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court’s -7- direction. Neither a court’s direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches. 16. A court or tribunal, before directing “consideration” of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a “live” issue or whether it is with reference to a “dead” or “stale” issue. If it is with reference to a “dead” or “stale” issue or dispute, the court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If the court or tribunal deciding to direct “consideration” without itself examining the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the court does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position and effect.” 11. Other than the aforesaid, in M.K. Sarkar (supra), it has been categorically held that once, the petitioner chose to remain under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, more importantly, received the entire PF amount on his retirement and the validity period of the option to switch over to pension scheme stood expired there was no recurring or continuing cause of action. The petitioner’s first original application filed before the Central -8- Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the subsequent representation made in pursuance to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in the case at hand, seeking an option to shift to pension scheme ought to have been straightaway rejected, as barred by limitation/delay and laches. 12. Lastly it is contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that on recommendations made by the 4th Central Pay Commission, the Government of India, vide OM dated 01.05.1987 gave an option to the employees, who were in service on 01.01.1986 to continue under the CPF Scheme or shift to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme, if they, so desired. The option was to be exercised and conveyed to the concerned Head Office by 30.09.1987. Admittedly OM dated 01.05.1987 was only applicable to Civilian Central Government Employees, who were subscribing to the CPF under the Contributory Provident Fund Rules (India) 1962. 13. KVS is an autonomous body. Statutory/ autonomous employees were not automatically covered in the aforesaid OM dated 01.05.1987. It is only in 51st Meeting of the Board of Governor of the KVS held on -9- 31.05.1988, it was decided that KVS shall implement mutatis mutandis the change-over from CPF to Pension Scheme in the manner indicated in OM dated 01.05.1987. The same was done vide OM KVS dated 01.09.1988, wherein the date of giving option was stipulated as 31.01.1989 before the Head Office/Principal and to reach the Sangathan Office by 28.02.1989. 14. Before the CAT, KVS Circular Dated 14.02.1989 has been placed (Annexure R-2, Page 65 of the writ paper book, part of Annexure P-7 filed with Writ Petition). At Page-66 of the writ paper book has been placed as Anneuxre R-3 (Part of Annexure P-7) document wherefrom, it is evident that circular dated 14.02.1989, was duly circulated and noted by the employees. Signature to this effect, i.e., acknowledgement by the petitioner, exists in the writ petition at Page 65 of the writ paper book. It is in pursuance thereto that option was exercised on 27.02.1989 by the writ petitioner. Hence, from the aforesaid, it is evident that the petitioner in the case at hand only became aware of the OM dated 01.09.1988 after 14.02.1989, when the latter was circulated and it is hence that an option was exercised by the petitioner on 27.02.1989. -10- 15. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the contention of the writ petitioner that the option in the case at hand had been exercised by the petitioner on 27.02.1989 much later than the cut-off-date is not correct as in the case of KVS the change over was only implemented vide KVS OM dated 01.09.1988, wherein the cut-off date was 31.01.1989 before the Principal and to reach the Sangathan, the date fixed was 28.02.1989 (See Clause 3.2 of OM Dated 01.09.1988 Annexure P-1). In the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, judgments whereupon reliance have been placed are clearly distinguishable on facts. 16. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) (Bipin Chander Negi) Chief Justice Judge 30th May, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)