ORDER : VIVEK RUSIA, J. Vide order dt. 4-10-2023, learned counsel appearing for the respondents was directed to examine as to whether the controversy involved in this writ petition has been resolved by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of University of Delhi vs. Smt. Shashi Kiran and others ETC, reported in (2022) 15 SCC 325 . 2. Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that this matter is not covered by the aforesaid judgment as the University of Delhi granted various extensions to its staff for giving consent for shifting from CPF to GPF but in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan no such extensions were granted. Learned counsel has made the statement on oral instructions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before the learned Tribunal the judgment passed in the case of University of Delhi (supra) was cited, but the learned Tribunal did not consider the same. Thereafter the issue has been settled and the similar petitions filed by the ex-employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya has been allowed by High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur against which the SLP has been dismissed. 4. Facts of the case in short are as under : (i) The petitioner was appointed in the year 1973 in the establishment of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. According to him, he submitted an application in the year 1983 for opting GPF scheme, but the same was not considered. In the year 1987, the scheme was introduced in the respondents department for introducing the GPF to its employees. As per clause 3.2 of the policy, any employee intended to opt for CPF has to submit an application/option and the person who has not opted for CPF will automatically cover by the GPF, for which a cut off date was fixed on 30-9-1987. The petitioner exercised the option on 16-1-1989 for continuance in CPF as final and irrevocable. A copy of the same is on record at page No. 113. The petitioner continued under the said scheme till retirement in the year 2008. After retirement, the petitioner submitted an application requesting respondents for conversion from CPF to GPF but the same was rejected. Hence, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of filing Original Application No. 202/00742/2021. The petitioner continued under the said scheme till retirement in the year 2008. After retirement, the petitioner submitted an application requesting respondents for conversion from CPF to GPF but the same was rejected. Hence, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of filing Original Application No. 202/00742/2021. (ii) The respondent Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan filed the reply by submitting that the respondent Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is an autonomous organization registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in order to cater the educational need of the children of the Central Government Employees appointed on the transferable posts. At the time of filing return, there were 1250 Kendriya Vidyalayas including 3 in abroad were functioning. It is submitted that the petitioner opted to continue in CPF scheme on 16-1-1989. Accordingly, he was allotted revised CPF account, which continued till his retirement. During service he never objected it and never applied for change and now the present OA is also barred by limitation. Therefore, O.A. is liable to be dismissed. (iii) After considering the material available on record, the Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 28-3-2023 dismissed the O.A. as the O.A. sans merit. Hence this petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. On 6-6-1985 the Central Government employees were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund in short ‘CPF’ and they were permitted to opt for General Provident Fund and Pension Scheme in short ‘GPF’. Thereafter, a notification was issued by the Central Government with respect to change over of the existing employees from CPF to GPF. As per notification dt. 1-5-1987, all the CPF beneficiaries, who were in service on 1-1-1986 and were still in service would be deemed to have come over to the GPF unless contrary option was exercised by them in writing by 30-9-1987. Therefore, by 30-9-1987 all the employees have deemed to have been come over in the GPF unless contrary option was exercised by them. On 30-9-1987 the petitioner had already been switched over to the GPF by fiction created in the notification dt. 1-5-1987. Therefore, the option given by the petitioner on 16-1-1989 is of no use and the same was not warranted even. After 30-9-1987, the respondents should not have taken option from the petitioner because he had already been switched over to GPF. After 30-9-1987, no authority was given to any employee to give option for continuing in CPF. 1-5-1987. Therefore, the option given by the petitioner on 16-1-1989 is of no use and the same was not warranted even. After 30-9-1987, the respondents should not have taken option from the petitioner because he had already been switched over to GPF. After 30-9-1987, no authority was given to any employee to give option for continuing in CPF. This interpretation of Clause 3.2 and notification dt. 1-5-1987 was not considered by the respondents as well as by the Tribunal. After the aforesaid cut off date neither the employee has any authority to change the option nor the employer could have insisted for change of option. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan adopted the 4th CPC report w.e.f. 1-1-1986 and implemented the same for its employee vide letter dt. 27-11-1986. 7. In the case of University of Delhi (supra), the Apex Court categorized the cases of bunch of employees in three categories. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner falls in the category of C. Shashi Kiran batch of cases. Para 14, 14.1, 14.2 and 14.3 are reproduced below :— “14. In these circumstances, Writ Petitions were filed in the High Court claiming diverse reliefs. These petitions, by order dated 21-5-2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, were categorized into three categories. 14.1 Employees who had not exercised any option at all and thus by virtue of the deeming provisions contemplated in the notification dated 1-5-1987, were deemed to have “come over” to GPF; but having continued to make contributions under the old CPF scheme were being treated to be under CPF. This batch was subsequently referred to as “R. N. Virmani batch of cases” in the decisions rendered by the High Court. 14.2 Employees who had not exercised the option by the cutoff date contemplated under the notification dated 1-5-1987 and were thus deemed to have “come over” to GPF; however, such employees had exercised the option to remain under CPF scheme during first two extensions granted by the University between 1-10-1987 to 29-2-1988; and were now praying that they be allowed to be under GPF. This batch of cases was described to be “N. C. Bakshi batch of cases” in the decisions rendered by the High Court. This batch of cases was described to be “N. C. Bakshi batch of cases” in the decisions rendered by the High Court. 14.3 Employees who had exercised positive option by 30-9-1987 i.e. by the original cutoff date contemplated under notification dated 1-5-1987 and had chosen to remain under CPF Scheme; but were now demanding that they be given further option and were therefore praying for extension of the cut-off date to enable them to “come over” to GPF. This group of matters was referred to as “Shashi Kiran batch of cases” in the decisions rendered by the High Court. 8. After considering the scheme, the Apex Court recorded the findings in para 48, 49, 50, 51, which are reproduced below : “48. It was against these three sub categories coming from the same category of employees that the argument of discrimination was considered by the Division Bench. Such was not the case in Krishena Kumar or Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran. The matter was further considered by the Division Bench in the context of the employees of educational institutions such as IITs, who are directly under the Central Government, just as the employees of the University, which is a Central University. If the option was allowed to be exercised by granting extension to the employees of the other educational institutions, the Division Bench did not find any reason why similar choice/option could not be given to the employees in Shashi Kiran batch of cases. Additionally, the feature that has been presented through the documents which have subsequently come on record is that even with respect to the employees of Insurance Corporations similar options and extensions were granted. 49. The differential treatment afforded 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 afforded chance to exercise an option of switchover to GPF, even though they had consciously opted to be under CPF, on principle of parity or equality, the case was certainly made out. 50. We may now consider the matter from the perspective of financial impact if the decision of the Division Bench is affirmed. 51. According to the notification dated 1-5-1987, the employees joining the service after 1-1-1986 would always be under GPF. 50. We may now consider the matter from the perspective of financial impact if the decision of the Division Bench is affirmed. 51. According to the notification dated 1-5-1987, the employees joining the service after 1-1-1986 would always be under GPF. With respect to those who were in service on 1-1-1986, said employees would be deemed to have “come over” to GPF unless an option to continue to be under CPF was consciously exercised before the cut-off date. Thus, when the Scheme was framed and was sought to be implemented, the concerned authorities must have taken into account the entire magnitude such as, the number of employees and the likelihood of impact on the management of the fund, so that reasonable returns can be effected by way of pension upon retirement of such persons. Going by the intent of the notification, those who were to opt for CPF, were an exception and the general rule was that everybody after 1-1-1986 would normally 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. We are concerned with only 75 persons. On the other hand, the bulk of people namely 2469 employees were granted the choice of reverse switchover and they were allowed all the benefits under GPF. It can reasonably be said that when the notification dated 1-5-1987 was issued, the authorities were conscious of the possibility that all the employees may ‘come over’ to GPF. With that possibility in mind, the fund was constituted and the affairs were arranged. The shift of those 75 employees would not in any way affect the strength and the character of the fund if a direction that the entire contribution made by the authorities be returned with reasonable rate of interest is issued. These 75 petitioners had approached the Court in the year 2010. At this length of time, it is not as if any floodgates are going to open and there will be drain on the resources of the State. A direction can, therefore, be issued, as was done by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 20 of his Judgment in R. N. Virmani batch of cases and which aspect was mentioned in the letter dated 23-1-2017 referred to in paragraph 8 hereinabove, for recouping the contribution under CPF with 8% simple interest per annum.” 9. A direction can, therefore, be issued, as was done by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 20 of his Judgment in R. N. Virmani batch of cases and which aspect was mentioned in the letter dated 23-1-2017 referred to in paragraph 8 hereinabove, for recouping the contribution under CPF with 8% simple interest per annum.” 9. The Apex Court has also considered the perspective of financial impact if the writ petitioner therein is held entitled to get the benefit of GPF. The Apex Court has observed that when the notification dt. 1-5-1987 was issued, the authorities were conscious of the possibility that all the employees may “come over” to GPF. With that possibility in mind, the fund was constituted and the affairs were arranged. The shift of only 75 employees would not in any way affect the strength and the character of the fund if a direction that the entire contribution made by the authorities be returned with reasonable rate of interest is issued. 10. In the present case also the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan has not filed any material before the Tribunal to show that if the present petitioner is permitted to opt the GPF, there are other number of employees who may claim the similar relief. Therefore, it is a solitary case which is not going to impact any financial burden on the respondent Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. Even otherwise, as held above, the option dated 16-1-1989, relying on which the Tribunal has dismissed the claim of the petitioner, ought not to have been taken after the cut off date. Therefore, this option is meaningless and will not come in the way of the petitioner to get the benefit of GPF in which he had already come after expiry of the last date. 11. Accordingly, Writ Petition stands allowed. The impugned order dt. 28-3-2023 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The relief claimed in the O.A. is allowed. Orders dt. 7-4-2015 and 5-11-2018 (A-1 and A-2 in the O.A.) are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to release the pension in favour of the petitioner from the date of retirement i.e. 1-10-2008 with arrears at the rate of 6% p.a. subject to the surrender of the amount received by the petitioner under CPF with simple interest 8% p.a. as directed by the Apex Court in the case of University of Delhi (supra).