K.V.S. AND ORS versus JASPAL KAUR AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 969 · Decided: 06-06-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

K.V.S. AND ORS. 
A 
,, ..
. 
,) 
v. 
JASPAL KAUR AND ORS. 
JUNE 6, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
,, 
Provident Fund Schemes-GPF and CPF-Employee of Kendriya c 
Vidalaya Sangthan subscribing to GPF Scheme-Issuance of Circular by 
KVS providing for option to employee to change over from GPF to CPF 
Scheme-Incumbent, teacher, opted to continue in the CPF Scheme-New 
CPF Scheme number allotted to her-Later, she desired to change from CPF 
Scheme to GPF Scheme-Representation-Rejected by Authorities-Allowing 
original application, Central Administrative Tribunal held that she was 
entitled to claim benefit of GPF Scheme-Challenge to--Dismissed by High D 
Court-On appeal, Held: Last pay Certificate clearly indicates that she. was 
"1 
subscribing to CPF Scheme-Al/ other documents produced by the authorities 
establish that she had exercised option for the CPF Scheme-Merely because 
the original documents relating to exercise of such option was not produced 
1, 
by the authorities, should not be a ground to ignore the ample material E 
produced by them to show the exercise of the option by the incumbent-Both 
the Courts below are not justified in taking a different view. 
Respondent no. I joined as a Primary School Teacher in the Kendriya 
Vidayala Sangathan (KVS). KVS issued a Circular providing for an option to F, 
its employees to switch over to GPF Scheme from the CPF Scheme. 
... ... 
Respondent No.I having exercised the option to continue in CPF Scheme, a 
new CPF account number was allotted to her. Later, she desired to change 
from CPF Scheme to GPF Scheme. Therefore, she made a representation to 
the concerned authorities. The authorities rejected the representation. 
Thereafter, an order was passed by KVS to the effect that she was not entitled G 
to claim benefit of GPF Scheme cum Pension Scheme as she had opted for 
CPF Scheme. She moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). CAT 
held that she was entitled to claim benefit of GPF Scheme cum Pension 
-, 
Scheme. The order of CAT was challenged by the authorities by filing a writ 
-( 
969 
H 
970 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 7 S.C.R. 
A petition, which was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellants contended that the option to continue with CPF Scheme had 
been exercised by respondent no. 1, which is evident from several documents 
produced by them before the Court. 
B 
Respondents submitted that the original documents showing exercise 
of option were not produced; and that because some other pieces of evidence 
were produced, they were not sufficient to show that option had been exercised 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
C 
HELD: 1.1. Respondent no. 1, in her letter dated 15th March, 1997, ha.s 
categorically stated that she was contributing towards CPF Scheme, wherein 
she has mentioned her account number. The letter was addressed to the 
accounts Officer. This document clearly establishes that respondent no 1 was 
aware of the change in account number and she herself referred to account 
D number. Her feigned ignorance about the change is absolutely hollow because 
she herself knows about the changed number. (Para 6( (973-A, Bl 
J .2. The last pay certificate issued to the respondent no. 1 when she 
handed over charge on 23.5.1992 clearly indicates that CPF subscription of 
Rs. 130/- was being deduced and that she had opted for the pay of CPF Scheme 
E and rate of subscription is Rs. 130/- per month and CPF account number was 
being inferred. On the face of these documents the CAT and the High Court 
should no have held that option was not exercised by the respondent no. 1. 
(Para 7( (973-B, q 
1.3. All the documents produced establish that respondent no. 1 had 
F exercised the option for the CPF Scheme. Merely because the original 
document relating to exercise of option was not produced that should not be a 
ground to ignore the ample materials produced to show exercise of the option. 
The CAT and the High Court were not justified in taking a different view. 
(Para 7( (973-D, El 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2876 of2007. 
H 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 22.3.2005 of the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 2365 of 2005. 
S. Rajappa for the Appellants. 
1111 
I 
. I 
( 
') ., 
' 
........... 
.... 
• 
K.V.S. v. JASPAL KAUR[PASA YAT.J.J 
971 
Rajesh. Dinesh Venna. Usha. A.P. Mohanthy and Rajesh Kumar Basandhi A 
· for the Respondents. 
The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.