Isabella Mariam

The Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, comprising Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Sibo Sankar Mishra  delivered its judgment on 8th May 2025, dismissing the writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench. The Tribunal had earlier rejected the petitioner's plea to switch from the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme to the General Provident Fund (GPF)-cum-Pension Scheme due to a significantly delayed application.

The petitioner, Baijayanti Mohanty, joined the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in English on 12th September 1985. Initially enrolled under the CPF Scheme, she continued in service until her retirement on 31st October 2012. An Office Memorandum (OM) issued by KVS on 1st September 1988 invited employees to exercise an option to switch to the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme. Despite continued service for 24 years post-issuance of this OM, the petitioner did not exercise the option during her tenure.

Also Read: Prima Facie Credibility Of Coercion Claim Sufficient For Arbitration | Full And Final Settlement Not A Bar | Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order And Appoints Arbitrator

It was only on 12th January 2019—over six years after retirement—that the petitioner filed a Right to Information (RTI) application to obtain a copy of the 1988 OM. Subsequent RTI queries revealed that no record of her exercising the option was found. Nevertheless, secondary records indicated her consistent participation under the CPF Scheme. The petitioner then submitted multiple grievances, including a representation to the KVS Commissioner on 16th July 2019 and a CPGRAMS complaint. Her requests were formally rejected on 6th September 2019 and again on 2nd January 2020, citing policy restrictions.

The petitioner subsequently filed O.A. No. 260/00294 of 2020 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench. The Tribunal dismissed the application, leading to the present writ petition.’

The petitioner primarily relied on the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, in Usha Rajagopalan vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (O.A. No.1248 of 2019), where similarly placed applicants were granted the benefit of the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme from their date of appointment or deemed changeover date, despite initial CPF membership.

The respondents argued that the petitioner had ample opportunity to exercise the option during her service but failed to do so. It was contended that the petitioner accepted CPF deductions throughout her career, received CPF account statements, and submitted income tax returns based on those contributions. The respondents further asserted that the original application was barred by limitation and suffered from gross delay and laches.

The Court observed that the petitioner was in continuous service after the issuance of the OM dated 1st September 1988 but did not avail of the option despite her counterparts doing so. The Court recorded that "her contemporaries who exercised the option to switch to the GPF Scheme were allowed to do so, and the petitioner never protested her continued coverage under the CPF Scheme during her entire service tenure or immediately after retirement."

The Bench found the petitioner’s plea of ignorance implausible, stating, "Her contention that she was unaware of the option or that her option form was not traced lacks credibility in light of her conduct; she accepted CPF deductions, received and acted upon CPF account statements, and even acknowledged a revised CPF account number without protest."

Quoting Paragraph 14 of the Tribunal’s Order, the Court reiterated that:

"She did not take any step over a period of more than seven years from the date of her retirement. She was allotted a new CPF account number, which is not in dispute, and she did not question at the relevant time when the new CPF number was allotted to her. Her contributions were regularly deducted from her salary, and she submitted her income tax returns based on those contributions for a long period."

The Bench distinguished the petitioner’s case from Usha Rajagopalan, observing that the applicants in that case approached the Tribunal promptly after retirement, whereas the petitioner delayed for over seven years.

The Court also invoked settled legal principles regarding delay and laches. Citing Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108, it recorded:

"The doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. When an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not."

Also Read: Right Under VAT Act Cannot Be Taken Away Retrospectively | Andhra Pradesh High Court Allows Input Tax Credit On Coolers But Disallows On Broken Bottles

Further reliance was placed on Union of India v. N. Murugesan (2022) 2 SCC 25 and Mool Chandra v. Union of India & Another (2025) 1 SCC 625, stating that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of the delay.

The Court concluded that the petitioner’s inaction for several years disentitled her from invoking its jurisdiction and upheld the Tribunal’s dismissal order.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that: "This Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, in O.A. No. 260/00294 of 2020. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: M/s. Adisha Mohanty, Mr. Pritish Mohapatra, Ms. Manisha Das, Advocates

For the Opposite Parties: Ms. Sanghamitra Rajguru, Senior Panel Counsel

Case Title: Baijayanti Mohanty vs. Union of India and Others

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 7336 of 2025

Bench: Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Sibo Sankar Mishra

[Read/Download order]