Orissa High Court
Sandhyarani Mohanty vs Union Of India And Others …. Opp. … on 10 March, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). No.28979 of 2025
Sandhyarani Mohanty .... Petitioner
Ms. M. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India and Others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. G. Sethi, Sr. Panel Counsel
(For Opp. Party Nos.1 & 2)
Mr. H. Tripathy, Advocate
(For Opp. Party No.5)
W.P.(C). No.28901 of 2025
Ramesh Chandra Samal .... Petitioner
Ms. M. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
The Commissioner, .... Opp. Parties
Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan, New Delhi &
Another
Mr. H. Tripathy, Advocate
(For Opp. Party No.2)
W.P.(C). No.28995 of 2025
Lakshmi Kanta Rana .... Petitioner
Ms. M. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
The Commissioner, .... Opp. Parties
Page 1 of 19
Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan, New Delhi &
Another
Mr. H. Tripathy, Advocate
(For Opp. Party No.2)
W.P.(C). No.29484 of 2025
Sandhya Rani Patel .... Petitioner
Ms. M. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
The Commissioner, .... Opp. Parties
Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan, New Delhi &
Another
Mr. H. Tripathy, Advocate
W.P.(C). No.29564 of 2025
Chaitanya Pradhan .... Petitioner
Ms. M. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
The Commissioner, .... Opp. Parties
Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan, New Delhi &
Another
Mr. H. Tripathy, Advocate
(For Opp. Party No.2)
---
W.P.(C) Nos. 28979, 28901,
28995, 29484 & 29564 of 2025 Page 2 of 19
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 09.02.2026
Date of Judgment: 10.03.2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. By means of the present writ petitions, the Petitioners call in
question the legality and propriety of the orders passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in the respective
Original Applications filed by them, whereby their claims seeking
conversion from the CPF Scheme to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme
have been declined. Since the questions of fact and law arising in all
the writ petitions are substantially similar and the impugned orders
proceed on identical reasoning, the matters were heard together
and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The Petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions were
employees under the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and had been
governed by the CPF Scheme during the course of their service.
After their retirement, or at a belated stage during service, the
Petitioners sought conversion from the CPF Scheme to the GPF-
cum-Pension Scheme, claiming entitlement to be brought under the
pensionary regime applicable to similarly situated employees. Since
the said claim was not acceded to by the authorities, the Petitioners
W.P.(C) Nos. 28979, 28901,
28995, 29484 & 29564 of 2025 Page 3 of 19
approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench by
filing separate Original Applications seeking direction for such
conversion and for grant of consequential pensionary benefits. In
certain cases, upon dismissal of the Original Applications, the
concerned Petitioners also pursued Review Applications seeking
reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision. The Tribunal, upon
consideration of the respective pleadings and materials placed on
record, declined to grant the relief sought for by the Petitioners and
dismissed the Original Applications. In the cases where Review
Applications were filed, the Tribunal also declined to interfere with
its earlier orders holding that no error apparent on the face of the
record had been made out warranting review. It is these orders
passed by the Tribunal which have been assailed in the present writ
petitions.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners assailed the
impugned orders primarily on the ground that several similarly
situated employees under the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan have
been granted the benefit of conversion from the CPF Scheme to the
GPF-cum-Pension Scheme pursuant to orders passed by different
Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal and referred to
various High Court’s decisions. It was contended that such benefits
having been extended and the challenges made by the institution
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India having not succeeded,
W.P.(C) Nos. 28979, 28901,
28995, 29484 & 29564 of 2025 Page 4 of 19
denial of the same benefit to the present Petitioners would amount
to discriminatory treatment. In support of such contention, reliance
was placed upon the decision in University of Delhi vs. Shashi
Kiran and Others, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 594, wherein the Hon’ble
Apex Court dealt with a batch of matters arising out of SLP Diary
Nos. 13901 of 2017, 36222 of 2018, 36221 of 2018, 29577 of 2018 and
17008 of 2017. Learned counsel further referred to the judgment of
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench dated
09.05.2024 passed in Misc. Petition No.2864 of 2023, which was
carried in challenge before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(C) Diary
No.47659 of 2024 and came to be dismissed on 29.11.2024. It was
further submitted that the said orders have also been implemented
by the institution concerned. Learned counsel also placed reliance
upon the judgment of this Court in Baijayati Mohanty vs. Union of
India and Others in W.P.(C) No.7336 of 2025 as well as the decision
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs.
Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 6 SCC 13 along with certain other decisions of
the Tribunal and various High Courts to contend that the
Petitioners are entitled to similar relief.
4. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the Opposite
Parties submitted that the institution had, on multiple occasions,
afforded opportunities to its employees to exercise option for
conversion from the CPF Scheme to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme.
W.P.(C) Nos. 28979, 28901,
28995, 29484 & 29564 of 2025 Page 5 of 19
According to him, communications inviting such options were
issued from 05.10.1987 to 21.01.1988 and further opportunities were
extended from time to time between 09.02.1989 and 16.11.1998,
culminating in a final notification dated 31.01.1999 prescribing the
last cut-off date for exercising such option. It was submitted that a
large number of employees had exercised such option pursuant
thereto, whereas the Petitioners, despite such opportunities,
continued under the CPF Scheme and have raised the present claim
only at a belated stage. It was further argued that the factual matrix
of the present cases is not identical to the cases relied upon by the
Petitioners and, therefore, the benefit granted in those matters
cannot be mechanically extended to the Petitioners. Accordingly, it
was urged that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the Original
Applications and the Review Applications and that no interference
is warranted herein.
5. In view of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and upon perusal of the materials placed on record,
the principal question that arises for consideration in the present
batch of writ petitions is whether the Petitioners, having continued
under the CPF Scheme and having not exercised the option for
migration to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme within the stipulated
period, are entitled at this stage to seek conversion to the pension
scheme and claim consequential pensionary benefits, and whether
W.P.(C) Nos. 28979, 28901,
28995, 29484 & 29564 of 2025 Page 6 of 19
the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal declining
such relief call for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has placed heavy reliance
upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
University of Delhi vs. Shashi Kiran and Others (supra) to contend
that similarly situated employees who were initially governed
under the CPF Scheme have been extended the benefit of migration
to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme. However, upon careful
consideration, this Court finds that the factual matrix of the said
decision stands on a different footing. In the said case, the
employees had approached the appropriate forum within a
reasonable time and the circumstances surrounding the exercise of
option and the conduct of the employer were distinguishable in
nature.
7. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of
the records, this Court has also carefully gone through the
respective orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in
the Original Applications filed by the present Petitioners.
8. Insofar as W.P.(C) No.28979 of 2025 filed by Sandhyarani
Mohanty is concerned, the challenge is to the order passed by the
learned Tribunal in O.A. No.260/00185 of 2021, whereby the
petitioner’s prayer for conversion from the CPF Scheme to the GPF-
W.P.(C) Nos. 28979, 28901,
28995, 29484 & 29564 of 2025 Page 7 of 19
cum-Pension Scheme was rejected. A perusal of the impugned
order reveals that the Tribunal examined the service particulars of
the petitioner, who had joined the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in the year 1985 and
continued under the CPF Scheme throughout her service. The
Tribunal recorded that the petitioner had not exercised the option
for migration to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme within the
stipulated period and had accepted CPF deductions during service.
Taking note of the belated nature of the claim and the absence of
any contemporaneous objection, the Tribunal declined to grant the
relief sought.
The cases of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.28901 of 2025
(Ramesh Chandra Samal), W.P.(C) No.28995 of 2025 (Lakshmi
Kanta Rana) and W.P.(C) No.29484 of 2025 (Sandhya Rani Patel)
stand on a similar footing. The said petitioners had approached the
learned Tribunal seeking conversion from the Contributory
Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme by
filing O.A. No.260/00216 of 2021, O.A. No.260/00232 of 2021 and
O.A. No.260/00214 of 2021 respectively. The Tribunal dismissed the
said Original Applications upon holding that the petitioners had
continued under the CPF Scheme and had not exercised the option
for migration to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme within the
stipulated period. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners invoked the
W.P.(C) Nos. 28979, 28901,
28995, 29484 & 29564 of 2025 Page 8 of 19
review jurisdiction of the Tribunal by filing Review Applications,
including R.A. No.1 of 2024. The Tribunal, however, declined to
interfere with the earlier orders, observing that the grounds urged
in review merely sought reconsideration of issues already
adjudicated and that no error apparent on the face of the record
had been demonstrated warranting exercise of review jurisdiction.
Insofar as W.P.(C) No.28564 of 2025 (Chaitanya Pradhan) is
concerned, the challenge arises from the order passed by the
Tribunal in O.A. No.260/00217 of 2021. The Tribunal, upon
examining the materials on record, found that the petitioner had
remained under the CPF Scheme and had not exercised the option
for migration to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme within the time
prescribed despite opportunities extended by the employer. The
Tribunal further noted that the claim had been raised after
considerable delay and accordingly declined to grant the relief
sought.
9. A perusal of the aforesaid orders clearly indicates that the
Tribunal has considered the factual background of each case, the
service records of the Petitioners and the policy governing
migration from the CPF Scheme to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme
before arriving at its conclusion. The findings recorded by the
Tribunal are essentially findings of fact based on the materials
W.P.(C) Nos. 28979, 28901,
28995, 29484 & 29564 of 2025 Page 9 of 19
placed on record and do not disclose any perversity or
jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court.
10. The law is well settled that a writ court exercising equitable
jurisdiction would be slow to entertain stale claims raised after
inordinate delay and acquiescence. In this regard, reference may be
made to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chennai
Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others vs.
T.T. Murali Babu, as follows:
‚16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be
lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the
explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The
court should bear in mind that it is exercising an
extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a
constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the
citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the
primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without
adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure
or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to
scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be
entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of
equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not
be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would
only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors
of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the
W.P.(C) Nos. 28979, 28901,
28995, 29484 & 29564 of 2025 Page 10 of 19
part of a litigant – a litigant who has forgotten the basicnorms, namely, ‚procrastination is the greatest thief of
time‛ and second, law does not permit one to sleep and
rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes
injury to the lis. In the case at hand, though there has been
four years’ delay in approaching the court, yet the writ
court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the
court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be
ignored without any justification. That apart, in the
present case, such belated approach gains more
significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely
careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude
to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent
on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the
cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to
such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the
contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect
others. Such delay may have impact on others’ ripened
rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation
which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been
treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to
give indulgence to such indolent persons – who compete
with ‘Kumbhakarna’ or for that matter ‘Rip Van Winkle’.
In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve
any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ
W.P.(C) Nos. 28979, 28901,
28995, 29484 & 29564 of 2025 Page 11 of 19
court should have thrown the petition overboard at thevery threshold.‛
11. In the present case, the records reveal that the Petitioners had
continued under the CPF Scheme during their entire service tenure
and had accepted the benefits flowing therefrom without raising
any objection at the relevant point of time. The challenge has been
made only after a considerable lapse of time, in some cases even
after retirement.
12. Even through merit, the application does not succeed. At this
juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs.
Jaspal Kaur, wherein the Apex Court had occasion to consider a
similar claim raised by employees seeking conversion from the CPF
Scheme to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme after having continued
under the CPF Scheme. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while
examining the factual circumstances of that case, held that where
an employee had consciously continued under the CPF Scheme and
had not exercised the option for migration within the stipulated
time, such employee cannot subsequently claim the benefit of the
pension scheme at a belated stage. The Court further observed that
once an employee had accepted the CPF regime and derived
benefits thereunder during the course of service, a belated claim
W.P.(C) Nos. 28979, 28901,
28995, 29484 & 29564 of 2025 Page 12 of 19
seeking conversion to the pension scheme would not be legally
sustainable.
13. This Court further notes that an identical issue has already
been considered in detail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Baijayanti Mohanty vs. Union of India (supra), wherein a similar
claim by an employee of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
seeking conversion from the CPF Scheme to the GPF-cum-Pension
Scheme after retirement was examined. The Co-ordinate Bench,
after analysing the factual and legal aspects of the matter, declined
to interfere with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
In doing so, it also took note of the settled principles relating to
delay and laches laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. T.T.
Murali Babu (supra) and Union of India vs. N. Murugesan, (2022) 2
SCC 25. Since the issue has already been comprehensively dealt
with therein, this Court does not propose to revisit the same in
detail.
14. In the instant case, it further appears from the impugned
orders that the Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the
institution had issued communications from time to time inviting
employees to exercise their option for conversion from CPF to the
GPF-cum-Pension Scheme and had ultimately fixed a final cut-off
date for exercising such option. The Tribunal recorded that several
W.P.(C) Nos. 28979, 28901,
28995, 29484 & 29564 of 2025 Page 13 of 19
employees had exercised the said option pursuant to such
notifications, whereas the Petitioners had not availed the same
within the stipulated period. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the
Petitioners, having continued under the CPF Scheme and having
accepted the benefits flowing therefrom, cannot seek conversion to
the pension scheme at a belated stage. The Tribunal has also
considered the decisions relied upon by the Petitioners and
distinguished the same on the ground that the entitlement to
conversion would depend upon the factual circumstances of each
case, particularly with regard to the exercise of option within the
prescribed time and the conduct of the employee concerned. The
Tribunal ultimately concluded that the claim raised by the
Petitioners suffers from delay and laches and that no legal right had
been made out warranting a direction for conversion to the GPF-
cum-Pension Scheme.
15. Before parting with the case, this Court also deems it
appropriate to advert to the observations made by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. M.M. Sarkar, 2010 (2)
SCC 59, hereunder:
‚7. When a scheme extending the benefit of option for
switchover, stipulates that the benefit will be available
only to those who exercise the option within a specified
time, the option should obviously be exercised within such
W.P.(C) Nos. 28979, 28901,
28995, 29484 & 29564 of 2025 Page 14 of 19
time. The option scheme made it clear that no option couldbe exercised after the last date. In this case, the respondent
chose not to exercise the option and continued to remain
under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, and more
important, received the entire PF amount on his
retirement. The fact that the respondent was the head of
his department and all communications relating to the
offer of Eighth Option and the several communications
extending the validity period for exercising the option for
pension scheme, were sent to the heads of the departments
for being circulated to all eligible employees/retired
employees, is not in dispute. Therefore, the respondent
who himself was the head of his department could not
feign ignorance of the Eighth Option or the extensions of
the validity period of the Eighth Option. In fact, as noticed
above, in his application before the Tribunal the
respondent refers to all the options. He is careful to say
that he was not `intimated’ about the contents of the last
order relating to extension of the option, but does not say
that he was unaware of the order extending the benefit of
option. The respondent consciously chose not to exercise
the option as he admittedly thought that receiving a
substantial amount in a lump sum under the provident
fund scheme (which enabled creation of a corpus for
investment) was more advantageous than receiving small
W.P.(C) Nos. 28979, 28901,
28995, 29484 & 29564 of 2025 Page 15 of 19
amounts as monthly pension under the pension scheme. Inthose days (between 1957 when the pension scheme was
introduced and 1976 when the respondent retired) the
benefits under the provident fund scheme and pension
scheme were more or less equal; and there was a general
impression among employees that having regard to
average life expectancy and avenues for investment of the
lump sum PF amount, it was prudent to receive a large PF
amount on retirement rather than receive a small pension
for a few years (particularly as there was a ceiling on the
pension and as dearness allowance was not included in the
pay for computing the pension).
8. From 1980 onwards, gradually the pension scheme
became more and more attractive as compared to the
Contributory Provident Scheme, on account of various
factors, like dearness allowance being included in the pay
for computing pension, ceiling on pension being removed
and liberalisation of family pension etc. But the respondent
was well aware that not having opted for pension scheme
and having received the PF amount on retirement, he was
not entitled to seek switch over to pension scheme. But in
1996, when the respondent learnt that some others who
had retired in and around 1973 to 1976 had been permitted
to exercise the option in 1993-94 on the ground that they
had not been notified about the option, he decided to take
W.P.(C) Nos. 28979, 28901,
28995, 29484 & 29564 of 2025 Page 16 of 19
a chance and gave a representation seeking an option toswitch over to pension scheme. Having enjoyed the
benefits and income from the provident fund amount for
more than 22 years, the respondent could not seek switch
over to pension scheme which would result in respondent
getting in addition to the PF amount already received, a
large amount as arrears of pension for 22 years (which will
be much more than the provident fund amount that will
have to be refunded in the event of switch over) and also
monthly pension for the rest of his life. If his request for
such belated exercise of option is accepted, the effect
would be to permit the respondent to secure the double
benefit of both provident fund scheme as also pension
scheme, which is unjust and impermissible. The validity
period of the option to switch over to pension scheme
expired on 31.12.1978 and there was no recurring or
continuing cause of action. The respondent’s
representation dated 8.10.1998 seeking an option to shift to
pension scheme with effect from 1976 ought to have been
straight away rejected as barred by limitation/delay and
laches.‛
16. In the considered view of this Court, the observations made
in the aforesaid decision assume particular relevance to the present
batch of cases. The materials on record reveal that the petitioners
W.P.(C) Nos. 28979, 28901,
28995, 29484 & 29564 of 2025 Page 17 of 19
had continued under the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF)
Scheme during their service tenure without raising any objection at
the relevant time and had accepted the benefits flowing therefrom.
The present claims appear to have been raised only after
subsequent developments and decisions rendered in other cases
came to light. Such attempts, often prompted by later perceptions
of comparative advantage between schemes, cannot form a valid
basis for reopening matters that had long attained finality. An
option exercised, or consciously not exercised, under a scheme
must be understood as a considered choice made in the context of
the prevailing circumstances at that time.
17. This Court would therefore observe that employees must
exercise due diligence and make informed decisions when options
under service schemes are offered. Courts cannot permit reopening
of settled positions merely because, with the passage of time or
with the emergence of favourable precedents, one scheme appears
more advantageous than the other. Entertaining such belated
claims would not only undermine certainty in service
administration but also encourage avoidable litigation by those
seeking to revisit choices made decades earlier
18. Upon careful consideration of the impugned orders and the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court
finds that the Tribunal has examined the matter in detail and has
W.P.(C) Nos. 28979, 28901,
28995, 29484 & 29564 of 2025 Page 18 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN
Designation: Senior Stenographer
assigned cogent reasons while declining the relief sought for by the
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 11-Mar-2026 18:13:58
Petitioners. The reasoning adopted by the Tribunal does not suffer
from any apparent error of law, perversity or jurisdictional
infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of
its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Web copy of the order to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
(Krishna Shripad Dixit)
Judge
AKPradhan
W.P.(C) Nos. 28979, 28901,
28995, 29484 & 29564 of 2025 Page 19 of 19