Supreme Court of India
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATIALAversusAMANDEEP SINGH & ORS.
- Citation
- 2017 INSC 13
- Decided
- 3 January 2017
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- S A BOBDE
Holding
Under the 1992 Regulations, an employee who does not opt within six months is deemed to continue in the CPF scheme, and no personal service of notice is required; therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to pension.
Summary
The plaintiff, a former driver of PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, did not submit an option under the PEPSU Road Transport Corporation Employees Pension, Gratuity and General Provident Fund Regulations, 1992, and retired receiving only Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) benefits. He sued for a declaration that he was entitled to pension, commuted pension and related benefits. The trial court and two appellate courts held in his favour, primarily on the ground that the notice inviting the option was not personally served. The Supreme Court held that the Regulations required employees to opt within six months of their issue, and failure to do so deemed continuation in the CPF scheme; personal service of notice was not mandated. Consequently, the plaintiff could not claim pension after having received CPF benefits, and granting both would amount to a double benefit. The Court allowed the corporation’s appeal, set aside the lower courts’ judgments, and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit.
Issues considered
- The requirement of personal service of notice inviting employees to opt for the pension scheme under the 1992 Regulations.
- Whether failure to opt within the six‑month period results in a deemed continuation in the existing CPF scheme, thereby precluding entitlement to pension.
- Whether an employee who has received CPF benefits without protest can later claim pension benefits.
- Whether granting both CPF and pension benefits to the same employee constitutes an impermissible double benefit.
Subjects
Service lawPension entitlementContributory Provident FundOption schemeDouble benefitNotice requirementStatutory regulations
Judgment
(2017] I S.C.R. 37
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATIALA A
v.
AMANDEEP SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3842of2011)
JANUARY 03, 2017 B
[S. A. BOBDE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.)
Service Law - Pension - Entitlement to - Suit by employee of
the appellant-Corporation for declaration that he was entitled to
pension, commuted pension and other benefits as per Regulations,
1992 - Trial court decreed the suit - Decree confirmed in first as
c
well as in second appeal - On appeal, held: The 1992 Regulations
were applicable to the employee who were working immediately
before the date of issue of Regulations, only if the employee opted
for the Regulations within a period of six months - On non-exercise
of option, employee is deemed to continue in the existing CPF scheme D
- Exercise of option was not dependent on personal service o,f' notice
- The employee-plaintiff having not exercised the option and ;i1rther
having received CPF benefits on his retirement without any protest,
he cannot be allowed benefit of pension under the 1992 Regw •tions
- Employee cannot be granted double benefit (i.e. CPF '" well as
E
Pension) -PEPSU Road Transport CorporatiOn Employees Pension,
C!_ratuity and General Provident Fund Regulations, 1992.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: L The employees of the appellant-Corporation
were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme prior F
to the enforcement of the PEPSU Road Transport Corporation
Employees Pension, Gratuity and General Provident Fund
Regulations, 1992 w.e.f. 15'" June, 1992. The applicability of
Regulations, 1992 to the employees who were working
immediately before the date of issue of Regulations i.e. 15'' June,
1992 was dependent on the opting for Regulations within a period G
of six months from the date of issue of Regulations as provided
under Regulation 4. In the event of non-exercise of option within
the period prescribed, the employee is deemed to continue in
the existing CPF benefit. There are no exceptions engrafted in
the deeming provisions and the deeming is a legal fiction which H
37.
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] I S.C.R.
A embraces all the employees who do not opt for new pension
scheme. [Paras 9 and 14] [41-F; 44-B-D]
2. The suit filed by the plaintiff had been decreed mainly
on the ground that notice inviting option has not been personally
served on the plaintiff. A plain reading of the Regulations does
B not indicate that period of six months which is provided for
submitting an option is dependent on personal service of notice.
Although, the Regulation has bee.n forwarded on 15" June, 1992
itself to the General Manager of all the Depots and other places
and.the letter dated 15'" June, 1992 further contemplates putting
on the notice board in the Head Office and the Depots, the
c Corporation has thus taken care of circulation of Regulation to
all concerned including the Head Office and all the Depots. The
notice inviting option need not to be personally served to the
employees nnless the Regulation or any instruction so provides.
[Paras 15 and 23] (44-E-G; 52-D]
D 3. Althongh Regulations were in force from 1992, plaintiff
retired on 30'' November, 2011 and after retirement received
CPF benefits without any protest and at no point of time before
retirement he has raised any grievance. The benefit which was
available to him under CPF scheme was received by the plaintiff,
E he cannot be allowed to another benefit flowing from the pension
scheme which he never opted. Extending benefit of the pension
scheme to the plaintiff shall be extending double benefits. CPF
benefit as well as pension scheme which was never contemplated
by the Regulations. (Para 23] (52-F-G]
F P EPSU Road Transport Corporation, Patiala vs.
Mq_nKal SinKh and others (2011] 6 SCR 564 : (2011)
11 SCC 702; Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam
Limited vs. Dwarka Prasad Koo/wed and others (2015)
12 sec 51 - relied on.
G
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others vs.
Bachan Singh (2009] 11 SCR 710 : (2009) 14 SCC
793 - distinguished.
Case Law Reference
[2009] 11 SCR 710 distinguished Para 16
H [2011] 6 SCR 564 relied on Para 20
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATIALA v. 39
AMANDEEP SINGH & ORS.
c2015) n sec 51 relied on Para 22 A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3842 of
2011.
From the Order dated 01.12.2006 by the Hi~h Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh in R. S. A. No. 35 of 2006.
B
K. K. Mohan, Adv. for the Appellant.
Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Tarun Gupta,
Purieet Varshney, Raunak Singh, Ms. Vriti Gujral, Varinder Kumar
Sharma, Ms. Parul Sharma, Ms. Suman Rani, Bikas Chandra, Pawan
Verma, Advs. for the Respondents.
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASH OK BHUSHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by PEPSU
·Road Transport Corporation, Patiala against the judgment and order of
Punjab and Haryana High Court dated l" December, 2006 by which.
judgment the Regular Second Appeal filed by the appellant has been D
dismissed affirming the judgments and orders of the Appellate Court
and Trial Court. This appeal has arisen out of the original suit filed by the
Balwant Singh the predecessor in interest of the respondents.
2. The brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for decidin_g
the appeal are : · E
Balwant Singh, the plaintiff had been working as driver with
PEPSU Road Transport Corporation. The statutory Regulation has been
framed, namely, PEPSU Road Tran.sport Corporation Employees/Pension
Gratuity and General Provident Fund Regulations 1992 (hereinafter
referred to as "Regulations 1992"), which came into force w.e.f. l S'h F
January, 1992. The Regulations were made applicable to the employees
of the Corporation who w'de appointed on or after the date of issue of
Regulations on whole-time and regular basis and those.who were working
immediately before the date of .issue of Regulations and opt for these
Regulations. The exercise of option for pension scheme was to· be made
within six months from the date of issue of Regulations. Those employees G
who opted for Regulations and had obtained advance from the Corporation
out of the Contributory Provident Fund wece required to refund the same
within a period of si.1' months. The plaintiff did not submit an option
under the Regulations 1992 and attained the age of superannuation on
JOth November, 2000. After retirement plaintiff was released the entire
H
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I S.C.R.
A amount of Contributory Provident Fund(CPF) which was received by
the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. I 044 of2003 for declaration to
the effect that plaintiff is entitled for pension and commuted pensions
and other benefits attached with the same alongwith interest@ 18% on
the delayed payment. The plaintiff's case was that after retirement the
defendant only released the contributed fund and has not released the
B
full pension. The defendants filed written statement stating that pl&intiff
had never opted for pension as per Regulations I 992. Plaintiff had
received all his dues and no dues against defendants is pending. Plaintiff
had obtained loan of Rs.12,000/- from CPF out of which Rs. 4999/- is
yet to be recovered. The Trial Court vide its judgment and order dated
c 26" March, 2005 decreed the suit declaring that plaintiff is entitled to
pension, commuted pension and other benefits and defendants would
issue demand notice to the plaintiff within one month as to how much
amount ofCPF should be paid by him(plaintiff) so as to avail the benefit
of pension scheme. The Trial Court held that although the plaintiff was
to give option as per Regulation 1992 and he had to deposit the amount
D
ofCPF but Pension cannot be declined on the technical gro.und that he
had not refunded the loan amount.
3. The Corporation aggrieved .by the judgment of the Trial Court
filed an appeal being C.A.D. No.2 I of 2005 which was dismissed by
learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda vide judgment dated 29'"
E
August, 2005.
4. The Appellate Court took the view that it was obligatory on
the part of the defendants to have led cogent reasons that the scheme
under the Regulations 1992 was circulated between the employees of
the Corporation and they were made to not.e the same so as to opt
F within specified period. It was further held that plaintiff had never opted
out of the Regulations. With the above finding the appeal was dismissed
by the Additional District Judge.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Court, Regular
Second Appeal was filed by the Corporation in the Pu.Jl:iab aiid Haryana
G High Court. The High Court also dismissed the appea·I by observing that
there is no evidence that pension scheme was circulated within the
employees and got noted by them. Relying on judgment of Punjab and
Haryana High Court, the appeal was dismissed.
6. Aggrieved by the above judgment, Corporation has come up
H in th is appeal.
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATIALA v. 41
AMANDEEP SINGH & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
7. Learned counsel for the Corporation in support of the appeal A
contended that the view taken by the courts below that notice for inviting
options have to be personally served to the employees is erroneous. It is
submitted that Regulations being statutory in nature, it was obligatory
for the employees to opt for pension scheme within six months from the
date of issue of the Regulations failing which they will deem to have
B
opted and continued with the CPF. The Regulations having sent to be
put on the notice board in the Head Office and all Depots and large
number of employees submitted their options, plaintiff cannot complain
that he was not personally served the notice. It was further submitted
that Ire had not refunded the loan even after his retirement. He was not
entitled for pension in any manner. The plain_tiffhad received the entire c
CPF amount after his retirement without any protest. He cannot claim
pension. Learned counsel for the respondents refuting the submission of
the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the courts below
had taken correct view of the matter that the plaintiff having not been
served the notice inviting option personally, the plaintiff's rights to receive
D
pension cannot be denied. It is submitted that had plaintiff aware of that
he had to deposit outstanding amount of loan to avail the pension, he
would have definitely deposited the outstanding amount of loan and in
any view of the mattt;:r the appellant could have deducted the outstanding
amount from his retiral benefits before finalizing the pension. Learned
counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on various judgments of E
this Court. While considering the submissions in detail we will refer the
same.
8. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused
the records.
9. The employees of the Corporation were governed by the F
Contributory Provident Fund Scheme prior to the enforcement of the
Regulations 1992 w.e.f. 15" June, 1992. Tl)e pension scheme was
introduced w.e.f. 15 1h June, 1992. Counter-affidavit has been filed in this
appeal by Respondent No. I. qipy of the PEPSU Road Transport
Corporation Employees/Pension Gratuity and General Provident Fund G
Regulations 1992 has been brought on record as Annexure R-3 by the
respondents themselves. A perusal of Annexure R-3 indicates that the
Regulations have been sent by the Corporation to the following:
"The General Manager,
PEPSU Road Tramport Corporation, Patiala, Patiala-II, H
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I S.C.R.
A Bhatinda-1, Bhatinda-11, Faridkot, Budh/ada, Barna/a,
Sangrur. Kapurtha/a, Ludhia111;i & Chandigarh "
10. Further th_e Regulations were also endorsed and copy of it
forwarded to several authorities for information and necessary action.
Apart from various officers of the Corporation, it was also forwarded to
B the following:
"8. Ad/Officer, Notice Board in the Head Office & in Depots.
9. CAO/FA, CAE, Dy.C.F. & A and all other Officers in HO."
11. Regulation 3 deals with application as follows:
c "Regulation-3: Application
(I) These'"Regulations shall apply to the empfoyees of the
PEPSU Road Transport Corporation who:
(i) were/are appointed on or after the date of issue of
Regulations on Whole-time and regular basis, and
D (ii)~were working immediately before the date of issue of
Regulations and opt for these Regulations.
(2) These Regulations shall not apply to the employees
who:
(a) Opt out of these Regulations.
E
(b) On deputation with the Corporation.
(c) are paid out qf contingencies.
(d) Are work charged employees.
(e) Are employed on contrad basis, except when the
F . contract provides otherwise.
(j) Are re-employed after superannuation. ·
. (g) Are specifically excluded wholly or partially from the.
operation of these regulations and
(h) Opt for the P.R.T.C. Employees Pension/Gratuity and
G Regulations General Provident Fund, 1992 but failed
to refund the amount of advance taken out of the
Empfoyees share of the Contributory Provident Fu11d
along with interest thereon within the stipulated
period.".
12. Regulation 4 deals with the exercise ofoption which is to the
H
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATIALA v. 43
AMANDEEP SINGH & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
following effect: A
"4. Exercise of Ontion:- The option under clause (ii) of the
Sub-Rule (I) of Regulation shall be exercised in duplicate in
writing in Form No.I so as to reach the Managing Director
as forwarded by General Manager in case of depots and
Administrative Officer in the cpse of headquarters with his B
countersignature. within a period of six months from the date
of issue of these Regulations.
Provided that:
(i) in the case of an employee, who on the date of issue these
regulations abroad or leave, the option shall be exercised c
within a period of six months from the date of taking the charge
of his post.
(ii) Where an employee is under suspension, on the date of
issue of these regulations, the option shall be exercised within
a period of six months from the. date of his joining the duty: D
(iii) An option once exercised shall be final.provide the
concerned employee deposit the Corporations share of C.P.
Fund received by him in advance if any, within, a period of
six months fi'om the date of issue of regulations and if a person
fails to exercise his option under the said regulations within E
the specified period referred to above, it shall be deemed that
he has opted to continue for the existing Contributory
Provident Fund benefit.
(iv) An employee who dies on or ajier the date of issue these
Regulations and who could not exercise his option the legal F
heir of such employee, who have entitled to receive retirement
benefits under the said regulations, shall exercise option
subject to the condition that the legal heir shall have to deposit
the amount of Corporation :S share of C.P. Fund received by
the deceased employee or by him, as the case may be, within
G
a period of six months.
(v) The employees recruited after the introduction of said
Pension Regulations will be covered under these regulations.
13. A perusal of the Regulations indicates that the Regulations are
applicable to the following two categories of employees i.e. : H
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] l S.C.R.
A (i) Who were/are appointed on or after the date of issue of
Regulations on whole-time and regular basis, and
(ii) Who were working immediately before the date of issue
of Regulations and opt for these Regulations.
14. The applicability of Regulations to the employees who were
B working immediately before the date of issue of Regulations i.e. l 5'h
June, 1992 was dependent on the opting for Regulations within a period
of six months from the date of issue of Regulations as provided under
Regulation 4.
15. Further as per Regulation 4 (iii) if an option is not exercised
c within a period of six months from the date o( issue of Regulations, it
shall be deemed that the employee has to continue with the existing
Contributory Provident Fund benefit, thus in the event of non-exercise
of option within the period prescribed, the employee is deemed to continue
in the existing CPF benefit. The deeming clause has been incorporated
D in the statutory provisions for achieving a purpose i.e. those who do not
opt within six months new scheme, they shall continue in the existing
CPF benefit. There are no exceptions engrafted in the deeming provisions
and the deeming is a legal fiction which embraces all the employees
who do not opt for new pension scheme. The suit filed by the plaintiff
had been decreed mainly on tl1e ground that notice inviting option has
E not been personally served on the plaintiff. Whether notice is required
to be personally served to an employee before the period of six months
as provided in Regulation 4 may start running is the question to be
answered. A plain reading of the Regulations does not indicate that
period ofsix months which is provided for submitting an option is dependent
F on personal service ofnotice. Although, as noticed above the Regulation
has been forwarded on l 5'h June, 1992 itself to the General Manager of
all the Depots and other places and the letter dated I 5'h June, 1992
further contemplates putting onthe notice board in the Head Office and
the Depots, the Corporation has thus taken care of circulation of
Regulation to all concerned including the Head Office and all the Depots.
G
16. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on
judgment of this Court in Dakshin Harytma Bijli Vitran Nigam and
others vs. Bachan Singh, (2009) 14 SCC 793. ln the above case a
Circular was issued by the Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam for
grant of benefit of work-charge service towards pensionary benefits
H dated 6'h August, 1993 which also provided for option in paragraph 5 of
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATIALA v. 45
AMANDEEP SINGH & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
the judgment. The Circular has been extracted which is to the following A
effect:
"5..The appellants had issued instructions dated 6.8.1993
for the grant of benefit of work-charge service towards
pensionary benefits. The said letter of 6.8.1993 is reproduced
as under:- B
"From : The Additional Secretary, Haryana State Electricity
Board (HSEB), Panchkula Memo No. Ch.9/Pen/G-G-43(93)
Daied 6.8.93 Sub: Amendment in the Punjab CSR Vol.11-
Adoption of State Govt. Notification The Haryana State
Electricity Board in its meeting held on 23.6.1993 has c
approved the adoption of Haryana Govt. Notification No.112
(55)-88-2 FR-II dated 4.2.92 (copy enclosed for ready
reference) with regard to the counting of service rendered by
the workers in the work charged capacity towards pensionary
benefit scheme. 2. However, most of the Board's workcharged.
employees are members of Employees Provident Fund (EPF). D
As such, the pensionary benefit would be subject to the
following conditions:- i) On regularization from workcharged
to regular employee, the employee has to submit an option.
within a period of 3 months from the date of regularization or
fron1 the date of issue of this circular, whichever is later as to E.
whether he/she intends to count the period of workcharged
service rendered by him/her towards pensionary benefits or
intends to continue to .be a member of EP F. The option is
required to be furnished in writing to his drawing &
Disbursing Officer who will authenticate. and record its entry
in the service boo~ of the employee and also paste the same F
in the service book so as to form a permanent record for future
reference. The Drawing & 4 Disbursing Officer will also
inform about his/her option to the appointing authority
immediately. ii) The option once exercised will be final and
not to be allowed to be changed in any circumstances. Jn G
case option is not given within the stipulated period of three
months, it will be presume{i that he/she intends to continue to
be a member of EPF. iii) Jn case, he/she opts for pensionary
benefits, he/she has to refund the entire amount of employee's
contribution along with interest thereon, towards their EP F
H
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I S . C.R.
A in lumps um for crediting to the Board,. account, Employees
contribution alongwith interest is to be deposited with the
Board for crediting to his/her GPF account. 3. Similarly, the
abo]Jg,benefit will also be available to the pensioners/recipients
of family pension of the Board on the same terms and
conditions with the exception that they will have to deposit
B
the at~1ount contributed by the Board as Employees
con/ribulioit towards EPF alongwilh interes/ thereon, in
lump.rn111. The pensioners/recipients of fa111ily pension 1~i//
have to give an Affidavit lo the fact that he/she will no/ claim
any interest on the arrear ofpensionary benefits which beco111e
c payable due to adoption of the State Govt. cirr:;ular. The
pensioners/recipient offamily pension will sub111it their option
within 3 111onths from the date of issue of this circular. for
availing pensionary benefi/s, to the Head of the office las/
al/ended. The option once exercised will be final. In case,
option is not given within the stipulated period of 3 monlhs, it
D
will be presumed that he/she intends to co/1/inue to be a member
of EPF. 4. These ins/rue/ions may please be got noled from
all 1he employees and acknowledge and receipl of !he /el/er.
Sd/- Under Secretwy (PW) For Addilional Secretary, HSEB,
Panchku/a"
E 17. The period for option was further extended. Certain circulars
were further issued on 9" August, 1994. The respondent in the above
case contended that he had no knowledge about the instructions, hence
he cou Id not exercise his option for grant of pensionary benefits with in
the prescribed time-limit. The writ petition filed by the respondent was
F allowed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court by recording a finding
that appellant had failed to produce any record showing that the
instructions dated 6.8.1993 and 9 .8.1994 were actually got noted in writing
from the respondent. The said finding has been recorded in paragraph
13 is to the following effect~
G "13. The Division Bench of /he Punjab and Haryana High
Court, offer hearing !he learned counsel for the parties at
/englh, came to the definite conclusion thal the appellants
had failed to produce any record showing that !he instructions
dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994 were actually got 110/ed in
writing_fi·om the respondent. The High Courtfi1rther observed
H
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PAT!ALA v. 47
AMANDEEP SINGH & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.)
that in the absence of any such material, it can well be inferred A
that the respondent had no knowledge about the options called
by the appellants vide circulars dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994.
The High Court also observed that it would be unreasonable
to deny pensionary benefits to the respondent despite the said
circulars issued by 1he appellants. "
B
18. Ultimately, this Court dismissed the appeal relying on the finding
of the High Court that the appellant had failed to produce any record
showing that the instructions were actually got noted in writing from the
respondent.
19. The above case was decided on the strength of specific c
instructions contained in Circulars dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994. Both
the above instructions contained following as one of the clauses: "These
instructions may please be got noted from all the employees and
acknowledge and_ receipt of the letter." Thus, noting by the employees
and acknowledge and receipt was a condition incorporated in the
instructions itself and due to breach of the said instructions benefit was D
given to the respondent in the said case. The above case has no application
in the facts of the present case where the Regulations do not contain
any such requirement of personal service of notice whereas Annexure
R-3 indicates that Corporation on the same day by letter dated 15'" June,
1992 has circulated .Regulations to all the General Managers with E
endorsement to be put it on the Notice Board. The Corporation had
taken due care to inform all its Headquarters and Depots and all
concerned about the Regulations.
20. The above judgment in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam
came for consideration before this Court in PEPSU Road Transport F
Corporation, Patiala vs. Mangat Singh amt others, (2011) JI SCC
702, in which same Regulations 1992 applicable to the PEPSU Road
Transport Corporation came for consideration. In which case facts of
one of the cases being Civil Writ Petition No.14562 of2004 titled as
Jagjit Singh v. PEPSU RTC were similar to the present case where
respondent did not submit an option within time and after retirement G
filed a suit for declaration. Facts were noticed in paragraph 13 to 18 to
the following effect:
"13. In Civil Appeal No. 3846 of 2010- PEPSU Road
Transport Corporation and Another v. Jagroop Singh
H
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I S.C.R.
A (hereinafter referred to as '"Jagroop '.s appeal"), the
respondent hadserved the C01poration as a driver and was
subscriber of C.P.F and gratuity. Subsequently, on
I 5. 06.1992, the Corporation introduced the Pension Scheme
for its employees and also made the Regulations in order to
regulate the said scheme.
B
14. The Pension Scheme in terms of Regulation 4 of the
Regulations envisages the condition for exercise of the option
on or before 15.12.1992, by an employee in order to avail
the pensionary benefits under the scheme. Subsequently, the
C01poration had also extended this period by three months.
c It is not i11 dispute that the respo11de11t had not exercised any
option for availing the benefits under the pe11sion scheme.
15. On 30.11.2000, the 8 respondent took pre-mature
voluntary retirement. On 08.06.2001, the respondent received
all the retrial benefits under the C.P.F Scheme and gratuity
D without any objection or protest. However, 01.06.2002, after
11early lOyears from his retirement, the respo11dent filed a suit
for declaration for the e11tit/ement to pension and other benefits
in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Bathinda.
16. The learned Civil Judge had passed the judgment and
E decree dated 01.03.2006 in favor of the respondent on the
ground that the respondent was never informed about the
option available under the Regulations and he came lo know
about this Scheme 011/y at the time of his retirement. The
learned Civil Judge further directed the Corporation to
F release pensionary benefit to the respondent along with interest
@9% per annum till the date of realization.
17. Being aggrieved by .the judgment and decree dated
01.03.2006, the Corporation filed a Regular Second Appeal
in the Court of District Judge, Bathinda, the same was allowed
G vide Judgment and order dated 27.04.2006 on the ground
that respondent is esiopped from claiming any pensionary
benefit by his act of receiving all the retrial benefits under
the C.P.F Scheme at the time of his retirement and failing to
exercise the option in terms 9 of Regulation 4 of the
Regulations in order to avail the benefits under the pension
H scheme.
. PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATIALA v. 49
AMANDEEP SINGH & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.)
18. Aggrieved by this order of the Additional District Judge A
dated 27.04.2006, the respondent filed a Regular Second
Appeal in the High Court, the same was allowed vide order
and judgment dated 23.12.2008. The High Court has followed
its earlier Judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 1./562 of 200./
titled as 'Jagjit Singh v. Managing Direc/01; Pepsu Road
B
Transport Corpo'ration and another' dated 03. I 2. 2008,
wherein, the appeal was allowed on the ground that the
pension scheme was never circulated nor was informed to
the employees of the Corporation a11d mere 11011-refund of
the loan taken from the C.P.F account would not disentitle
the employee from claiming pension under the scheme. " c
21. This Court considered the Regulations and held that it is not
necessary to the Corporation to give an individual notice to the
respondents for exercising of option. Judgment of Dakshin llltrymw
Bijli Vitran Nigam was noticed and distinguished. It-is useful to mention
here paragraphs 53 and 54 and 56 which are relevant and extracted as D
follows:
"53. The learned counsel for the respondents in support of
their contention for want of knowledge of the Pension Scheme
. due to 35 non-service of individual notices relied on the
decision of this Court in Dakshin Ha1yana Bijli Vitran Nigam E
v. Bachan Singh, (2009) 14 SCC 793. The said decision is
clearly distinguishable on facts. In tlwt case, the appellant,
Haryana State Electricity Board, had issued instructions dated
23.06.1993 and circular dated 09.Q8.199./ in orde,r to provide
an option to the employees for pensionary benefits in lieu of
their work charged service with an express condition of noting F
of instructions from all the employees and acknowledging the
receipt of the letter. In these appeals, before us, there is no
such condition of noting from the employees or serving
individual notices in the Pension Scheme or Regulations.
Therefore, in our opinion, Bachan Singh decision will not G
assist the respondents.
54. In our viett; in the facts and circumstances of the present
case and in view of absence of such condition in the scheme,
it is not necess01y for the Corporation to give an individual
notice to respondents for exercising of option for pension H
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I S.C.R.
A Sche111e and also for asking respondent to refund the
employers contribution of C.PF at each stage. Furthermore.
when notice or knowledge 36 of the Pension Scheme can be
reasonably inferred or gathered from the conduct of the
respondents in their ordinary course of business and fi"om
surrounding circumstances. then, ii will constitllle a sufficient
B
notice in the eye of law.
56. The Regulation 4 (iii) of the Regulations is a dee111ing
provision to the effect: firstly, if an e111ployee fails to exercise
his option within a period of 6 months fro•u the date of issue
of these Regulations and; secondly, even on exercise of option,
c if an employee fails to refund the amount of advance taken
from employers contribution of the C.PF within 6 111onthsfrom
the date of issue of these Regulations, then it shall be deemed
that employee has opted to continue for the existing C.P.F
benefit. Therefore, the failure on the part of the respondents
D to opr jiJr //;i! Pension Scheme and refund the advance taken
/i'om the employer' co/1/ribution of C.P.F will disentitle the111
' from 38 claiming any benefit under the Pension Scheme.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the Judg111enl and order passed
by the High C our/. " ·
E This Court in the above case set aside the judgment and orders
passed by the High Court and allowed the appeals.
22. In another subsequent judgment in Rajasthan Rajya Vidy11t
Vitran Nigam Limited vs. Dwarka Prasad Koolwal am/ others,
(2015) 12 SCC 51, both Dakshin Jlary111w Bijli Vitrtm Nigam 11111/
F PEPSU Road Transport Corporation vs, Mangal Singh came to be
considered. The question as to whether the notice inviting option to be
served personally to the employees for option was also considered by
this Court. After noticing the aforesaid cases it was laid down in
paragraphs 42 to46:
G
"42. Ulti111ately the issue boils down to the overall assess111e11/·
of the awareness level of the employees of the RSEB based
on the available data. Based on the facts presented before
us, on a co111posite consideration of the facts and taking a
pragmatic view of the sitziiition, a reasonable and legitimate
inference can be drawn that the respondents were aware of
1-1 the notices issued for the exercise of the switch-over option
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATIALA v. 5I
AMANDEEP SINGH & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
but they chose not to exercise that option either for personal A
reasons or perhaps because it did not suit them. The position
changed in the second ha(f of 1997, by which time it was too
late for them to do a rel hin k.
43. One of the contentions urged by the respondents as writ
petitioners in the High Court was that each employee should B
have been individually served with each notice inviting the
switch-over option. That contention was accepted by the High
Court by relying upon Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam
and Others v. Bachan Singhl but was not directly canvassed
before us. In any event the decision relied upon by the High
Court was considered and distinguished in PEPSU Road
c
Transport Corporation, Patiala v. M@gal Singh and Others.
The contention in this regard is a bit collateral, and ii is this:
the switch-over option form was required to be filled up by
each employee clearly indicating the option exercised - either
to continue with the CPF Scheme or to switch to the Pension D
and GPF Regulations. This could be done only if the option
form was made available to each employee.
44. Jn Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam the instructions
relating to the exercise of the switch-over option specifically
mentioned that: (SCC p. 797, para5) E
"(4) These instructions may please be gut noted from all the
employees and acknowledge the receipt of the /el/er."
The appellants therein were unable to show that the
instructions were actually got noted in writing by the
respondent. It is under these circumstances that it was inferred F
that the respondent had no knowledge about the options called
by the appellants. Consequently,. the denial of pension benefits
to the respondent was held bad.
45. Jn PEPSU RTC v. Mangal Singh the decision rendered in
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam was distinguished on G
facts since in the PEPSU appea/there was no condition of
noting from the employees or serving individual notices in
the Pension Scheme or Regulations. This Court went on to
say: (PEPSU RTC case, SCC p. 723, para54)
"54. Furthermore, when noli'ce or knowledge of the Pension H
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20 I 7] I S.C.R.
A Scheme can be reasonably inferred or gathered from the
conduct of the respondents ii1 their ordinary course of
business and ji-om surrounding circumstances, then, it will
constitute a sufficient notice in the eye of the law."
46. The fact situation.in the present appeals is somewhat
B similar. In this context, we may infer that under such
circumstances, it was equally the responsibility of the
respondents to collect the option forms ji-om the concerned
authority, fill them up and submit them fu ,/;e competent
authority. It is too much to expect that even though it was not
necessary for each individual employee to be served with each
c noticq, yet there was a duty cast on the RSEB to ensure that
each employee is ji1rnished a copy of the option form. Jj such
a contention is accepted, it will amount to circuitously
accepting that, though the employees need not individually
be served the notices, yet they would have to be individually
D served with a copy of the option form. "
23. In view of the above, it is well settled that the notice inviting
option need not to be personally served to the employees unless the
Regulation or any. instruction so provides. The Regulations 1992 which
are being considered in the present case had already been interpreted in
E PEPSU Road Transport Corporation vs. Mangal Singlt as noticed
above. This Court having already held that Regulations 1992 do not
contemplate any personal service of notice to employees the finding in
the judgment of the courts below holding otherwise for decreeing the
suit of the plaintiff are unsustainable. From the facts of the present case
it is clear that although Regulations were in force from I 992, plaintiff
F. retired on 30'" November, 2011 and after retirement received CPF
benefits without any protest and at no point of time before retirement he
has raised any grievance. The benefit which was available to him under
CPF scheme was received by the plaintiff, he cannot be allowed to
another benefit flowing from the pension scheme which he never opted.
G Extending benefit of the pension scheme to the plaintiff shall be extending
double benefits- CPF benefit as well as pension scheme which was
never contemplated by the Regulations. In any view of the matter, the
issue in the present case is covered by the judgmenr in PEPSU Road
Transport Corporation 1•s. Mangat Singlt (supra) and we do not
propose to take any different view in the matter. Learned counsel.for
H
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATIALA v. 53
AMANDEEP SINGH & ORS. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
the respondents has also contended that in so far as the outstanding A
amount of CPF is concerned the said amount could have been deducted
by virtue of Regulation 24 and which amount is to be adjusted against
death-cum-retirement gratuity. In the present case the plaintiff having
not opted for pension scheme, the requirement from refunding the advance
taken from CPF within six months is not attracted. More so, in the present
B
case as has been stated by the appellant in the written statement in the
suit even after retirement an amount of Rs.4999/- was due from the
advance taken by the respondents from his CPF amount.
24. In view of the foregoing, we are of view that the judgments of
the courts below are unsustainable. The suit of the plaintiff deserved to
be dismissed. In the result the appeal is allowed. The judgments of the c
High Court as well as First Appellate Cou11 and Trial Court are set aside
and the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. The parties shall beartheir
own costs.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal allowed.
D
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Service law"Sign in to search