Holding

The respondents were not entitled to any further switch‑over opportunity; the multiple extensions already provided satisfied the statutory requirement, and the pension‑bounty argument was irrelevant.

Summary

The Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB) introduced a Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme and, later, a Pension and General Provident Fund (GPF) scheme in 1988, requiring employees to choose between them within 90 days. Over the next eight years RSEB issued a series of notices extending the window for switching, and about 46,000 of roughly 50,000 employees exercised the option. The petitioners, who remained in the CPF scheme, claimed they were unaware of the notices—especially those posted in remote areas—and argued that pension is not a bounty, thus entitling them to another opportunity to switch. The Supreme Court examined the adequacy of notice, the employees' personal responsibility to submit option forms, and the effect of a 1995 Whole‑Time Members' decision. It held that the employees had been given ample and repeated opportunities, that the lack of individual notices was not fatal, and that the pension‑bounty argument was irrelevant. Consequently, no further switch‑over right existed. The Court allowed the RSEB’s appeals and remitted a few specific appeals for fresh consideration.

Issues considered

The respondents' entitlement to an additional opportunity to switch from the CPF scheme to the Pension and GPF schemes after the closure of the option in 1999.
Whether the notices issued by RSEB were sufficiently publicised and whether individual service of notices was required.
Whether the 1995 Whole‑Time Members' decision to allow switching up to six months before retirement created a binding right.
Whether the employee’s personal responsibility to submit option forms bars a claim of lack of notice.
Whether pension can be characterised as a bounty or charity, affecting the right to a further switch‑over.

Legislation cited

Subjects

service lawpensionprovident fundswitch‑over optionemployee rightsnotice publicityRajasthan State Electricity BoardCPF schemeGPF schemeadministrative law

Judgment

[2014] 13 S.C.R. 492

A RAJASTHAN RAJYAVIDYUTVITRAN NIGAM LTD.

v.
DWARKA PRASAD KOOLWAL & ORS.

B (Civil Appeal No. 7483 of 2014)
AUGUST 07, 2014

[MADAN B. LOKUR AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.]

c Service Law- Switch-over option from CPF to Pension/
GPF Scheme - Whether the respondents were entitled, as
of right, to one more opportunity to switch-over from the
Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme of which they
were members, to the Pension Scheme and the General
D Provident Fund (GPF) Scheme implemented by the
appellant - Held: Entitlement to pension was available to
the respondents but they chose not to avail the entitlement
for reasons personal to them - Having taken a decision in
this regard, the respondents cannot now raise an argument
E of pension not being a bounty and therefore requiring the
appellant-employer to give them another option to switch over
to the Pension and GPF Regulations.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
F HELD:1.1. No doubt pension is not a charity or a
bounty and an employee is entitled to earn his pension,
but when two schemes are available to an employee, one
being the CPF Scheme and the other being the Pension
_Scheme, it is for the employee to choose the scheme
G that he feels more comfortable with and appropriate for
his purposes. No employee can switch over back and
forth from one scheme to another as per his
convenience. Once an employee has chosen to be a part
H of a particular scheme, he continues to remain a member.
492
RAJASTHAN RAJYI,\ VIDYUTVITRAN NIGAM LTD.v. 493
DWARKA PRASAD KOOLWAL

of that scheme unless an option to switch over to A
another scheme is given to him. [Para 69][520-D-F]

1.2. The respondents _who are members of the CPF
Scheme were given several opportunities of switching
over to the Pension Scheme and the GPF Scheme under B
the Pension Regulations and the GPF Regulations
respectively but they chose not to do so. The entitlement
to pension was available to the respondents but they
chose not to avail .the entitlement for reasons personal
to them. Having taken a decision in this regard the c
respondents cannot now raise an argument of pension
not being a bounty and therefore requiring the appellant-
RSEB (employer) to give them another option to switch
over to the Pension and GPF Regulations. [Para 70]
[520-F-H; 521-A] D

Dakshin Haryana Bij/i Vitran Nigam and Others
v. Bachan Singh (2009) 14 SCC i93 -
distinguished.
PEP SU Road Transport Corporation, Patia/a v. · E
Mangat Singh and Others (2011) 11 SCC 702 -
relied on.
Case Law Reference:
F
(2009) 14 sec 793 distinguished Para 50
(2011) 11 sec 702 relied on Para 50
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No.7483of2014. G

From the judgment and order dated 17.05.2012 in
DBCSA No. 27 4. of 2012 and SBCWP No. 10900 of 2010
passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur.
H
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.

A WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 7483, 7484, 7485, 7486, 7487,7488,
7489,7490,7491,7492,7493,7494,7495,7496,7498,7499,
7500,7501,7502,7503,7504,7505,7506,7507,7508,7509,
B 7510,7511,7512,7513,7514,7515,7516,7517,7519,7520,
7521,7522,7523,7525,7526,7527,7528,7529,7530, 7531,
7532, 7533,7534, 7535,7536, 7537,7538, 7539,7540,7541,
7542,7543,7544,7545,7546,7547,7548,7549,7550,7551,
7!:j52, 7553, 7554, 7555, 7556, 7557, 7558, 7559, 7560, 7561,
c 7562,7563,7564,7565,7566,7567,7568,7569,7570,7571,
7572 and 7573 of 2014.
L. Nageshwar Rao, ASG., Shiv Mangal Sharma, AAG.,
Puneet Jain, Ms. Ankita Gupta, Ms. Khusbu Jain, Jagmohan
Saxena, NishitAgrawal,AkshatAnand, Ms.Anjali Chauhan,
0
Saurabh Rajpal, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Sushi! Kumar Jain, Advs.
for the Appellant.
Kailash Vasdev, P.N. Misra, Sr. Advs., Vishwajit Singh,
Abhindra Maheshwari, Pankaj Singh (For M/s Vidhi
E International), Milind Kumar, Ms. Veera Kaul Singh, Umrao
Singh, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ms. Sanjoli Mittal, Amit Verma;
Anshuman, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Ms. Pragati Neekhra,
Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Advs. for the Respondents.
F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MADAN 8. LOKUR, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The primary question for consideration in all these
appeals is whether the respondents were entitled, as of right,
G to one more opportunity to switch-over from the Contributory
Provident Fund Scheme of which they were members, to the
Pension Scheme and the General Provident Fund Scheme
implemented by the appellant with effect from 2.8 1h November,
H 1988?
<:

i
I ;_ RAJASTHAN RAJYA v1DvuT v1rRfi.N' N18:A.rVi L-ro. v.. A95
DWARKA PRASAD KOOLWAL [MADAN B. LO KUR, J.] I
. I '
0

/ , ' "<T---. ' ,' • , • r t •", -,,-,_,, • ,

· ' .·.· Broadly speaking, the contentio11'ofthe respondents is A
. that they were unaware of thes~itch~over option since ttiey
were posted in remote areas of Rajastha'n,·while the·conteniiori
of the appellant:is that a large'humber of'oppcirtunities
extending over 8' years 'were given to the re'spondents to
· exercise the switch-over option and that they could not claim B 1,

any right to any. further opportunity to make the switch over.
~-;:;..... ;-_ -··-•
;~.· _,, .
--~;~. .._,.,_,,._. , ' ' ._,.' .
- '" ~' ,·
'
' !
'.. . 3; In our opinion, thed:mtention of the appellant miiSt be
. accepteid and theimpl.Jgned judgment and order dated 17'" .,
!

. May, 2012 accepting the contention of the respondents has ti:i c
be set aside. ' i J '. . ,·.. '., t; -' , . -; :~ . • '~:-. !
I' . ; .! . ; • •, ' ' - , ; '

' ' i
·:;;·, . .;~--....-~i :_·1 ~, :.1 ;.:;·· :;··-:~:-; ,: : t . . ; :~' r:·~1-1l ::., -~,;!) n_': ·: _ :
... 4. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short 'the '
RSEB') had· introduced a Contribufory Provident.Ftind Scheme D
in~ 19l2 (for short 'the CPF, Scheme') for, the benefit of its
. employees. This was in exercise. of powers conferred by the
Employ.ees ~~ovi~ent F,unds an~ ,Miscellaneous Provisions ·
Act,
,,. 1952.,. , .,,, .. •. .. · .. ·,'····.......... 1. . . •'.• ·.•.'.'.·,''·' ,
........... • . ..• E
s::--: 5.'0n 28'"Noveiriher, 19B8 the RSEB, in exerCise'of
·powers conferred by Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act; :1

1948 made the Employees Pension Regulations,.1988 (for
short at1e Pension Regulations') and lhe Employees General
-Provident
..· , .. I"- .Fund
. , ... -Regulations,
,,_. . • . ' . ·- 1988
, . ' (for short ,;the.GPF, F < •• - _, ' - -- ' - '.~

Regulations').
. ' ' ·"''-1 .
'· ..,~, .......... , -·. .•·,_,,,_·"·•"•:
:.J:.,,~.~
.·ii.':.
. ., ...... ._,_
, ... ,,c,r.•··
__
., ,- "._, ;~'·--·'

... ,6. Both the set of regulations came'-into''tkffe~t'c)ri' 28iti
November; 1988 and the existing employees of the RSEB on
t,h.e,cut~offdat~_were ~nt!t~ed exerci~ea~~opfion of either G t?
continuing as members of.the existing CPF. Scheme or
switching to the
Pension~ Scheme 'th'e GPF Scheme u.nder and
the Pension Regulations· and the GPF Regulations respectively
within a period of 90 days from the date of commencem'3rit of
H

I
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.

A the GPF Scheme. Such oft~e employees of the RSEB, who
joined after 28th November, 1988 were automatically governed
by the Pension Regulations and the GPF Regulations. The
switch-over option was, therefore, available to only those
employees who were on the rolls of the RSEB on the cut-off
B date.

7. On 61hJanuary, 1989 the RSEB issued a notice giving
an option to the existing employees (including the respondents)
to switch over from the existing CPF Scheme to the Pension
C and GPF Regulations.
8. The notice stated, inter alia, that the switch-over option
should be exercised by the employee in writing within a period
of 90 days from the date of its issue and that no request for
extension of time, seeking clarification or review would be
0
entertained. Significantly, it was stated in the notice that if an
employee does not exercise his clear option within the
specified time limit, he shall be deemed to have retained the
benefits available to him under the CPF Scheme to which he
E was already entitled. The notice set out the procedure for
exercising the option, which is forwarding it to the concerned
officers.
9. The notice also stated that it should be given wide
F publicity by pasting it on the notice board of various offices
under the RSEB. It was stated in the notice that pasting would
be treated as sufficient notice for all the Board employees for
whom it was intended.
10. The respondents did not exercise their option in terms
G of the notice dated 6th January, 1989 although as many as 2741
employees exercised their switch-over option.
11. The RSEB issued a second notice dated 4th April,
1989 extending the period for exercising the switch-over option
H
RAJASTHAN RAJYAVIDYUTVITRAN NIGAM LTD.v. 497
DWARKA PRASAD KOOLWAL [MADAN B. LOKUR, J,]

for another 45 days after the expiry of the period of the first A
option of 90 days given in the first notice dated 6th January,
1989. The second notic.e was issued since the first notice
was not published in Hindi which inhibited the employees of
the RSEB in exercising the switch-over option within the
prescribed time limit. B
12. The second notice did not mention anything about
giving it wide publicity but it appears that in keeping with the
mandate mentioned in the first notice dated 6th January, 1989
this notice too was given wide publicity since it resulted in as c
many as 31,217 employees exercising their switch-over option
within the period of 45 days.
13. A third notice dated 19th May, 1990 was issued by
the RSEB extending the period of the switch-over option up to D
30th June, 1990 that is for a period of about 40 days. The
occasion for issuing the third notice was that references were
received by the RSEB from 'various corners' to extend the
period of exercising the option for a further period of 45 days.
14. In terms of the Pension Regulations daily rated/work E
charge employees were excluded from the scope of the
Pension Regulations and even though some of them were given
a regular pay scale with effect from 1st April, 1989 they could
not exercise the switch-over option since they were not on a F
regular pay scale/service on the cut-off date that is 28th
November, 1988. The third notice was issued to give the
benefit of the Pension and GPF Regulations to such daily
rated/work charge employees as well as to the regular
employees covered by the CPF Scheme. It was mentioned in G
the notice that this would be the last and final opportunity for
exercising the switch-over option and that the employees, both
regular as well as daily rated/work charge employees should
ensure that their option forms were received by the concerned
H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13S.C.R.

A authority within the prescribed time limit that is 301h June, 1990
positively. As many as 3972 employees of the RSEB exercised
their switch-over option in response to the third notice .
.,
"" r_ .
1. 15. The RSEB issued a fourth notice dated 17tt1
B September, 1991 extending the time limit for exercising the
switch-over option by a further period of 90 days. This was on
the basis of references having been made to the RSEB from
'various comers' to allow one more opportunity to exercise the
option for obtaining the benefits under the Pension and GPF
c · Regulations. The fourth ·notice mentioned that in case an
employee did not exercise the option within the period of 90
days it would be deemed that he had retained the benefits
a.vailable to him under the CPF Scheme. In. response to the
fb.urth
,J
notice,
-
as• many as 27 41 employees of the RSEB
,.
D exercised their option.
16. A fifth notice was issued by the RSEB on 27th January,
1993 which was in the form of an order. This related to counting
ofthe period of service for pension purposes of work charge
E employees who were absorbed or appointed to regular posts
~,nder the RSEB. , .

,- 17. It was stated that the work charge employees of the
RSEB who were absorbed/appointed on a regular basis would
F be allowed'to exercise the switch-over option subject to certain
conditions. The option to switch over was to be exercised in
writing up to 151h Match, 1993 that is within a period of about
45 days. It was specifically stated in the order that those
employees who do not exercise the option within the aforesaid
G period' would be deemed to have retained the benefits under
the CPF Scheme. The be!lefit of the order dated 271h January,
1993 was also extended to those work charge employees who
were brought on a regular post on or after 28th November, 1988
but had died before exercising their option. In respect of these
H
:n.'.·. DWARKA
RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD.v. c 499
PRASAD KOOLWAL [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] ).

[persons, tbe_order_statedJhattheywould be deemed to have rA
·. ,,opted for; pemsion. unless the._menibers of the',tamily ·of the ·
! deceased specifically make a request that they may be paid
LCPF
. . -··
benefits due .to --the
. deceased.
- '' . This. order also .conferred
, a benefit on those employeesof the RSEB who.had retired
-after_28~Noyember, ,1988 but prior to the issue of the order ;B
1,an,d_had received the retirement benefits admissible under the
.CPF Scheme .. They too. were made entitled to exercise .the
switch-over option subject to certain conditions. A.s many as
:':i149 eini)1oyees exercis~ci ttieir option °iM respcin'Se to the fifth
i-nouce; 1.:;;i1 ;::-...)~~-~, -~:;u nj f'l(~'.:_:1:).~:_, ,~ b~:t.~:);.-·.,.!!'.:~r~·-:;·~, ::c
~ ;'-. ~:· ;:-,..::.\·.-:~ ~:~.: ,A:_: /C·'.:~;··i ;: ':'!·~re.: !L~\i:~: (;~~,·:; :.~.-:: ;::·~-- fil!i'. .
C":il ~ 18. A sixth notice.was issued by the RSEB on 8\11 May,
v,1995 extending the benefit of,the_switch~over,option to the
· , existing employees till 31~March, 1996. that is for an extended
;,period of about320 days.- ft was mentioned that in case .the cD
I ' . . . ,

.· switch 7over option was not e_xercised; it shall be deemed that
.the employee has retained .the existing CPF benefits.The
number of options exercised. in response to. the sixth. notice
was4460. ·· ,;::_-_,,--;j·• ... ;,~: i, :)'.) 1::1 \P --:
, . =E
·;j19; A severith notice. wa~ issued by the RSEB on 22nd -

I
,·

· August,,,1995 as a 'result of representations received from
:.retired employees who desired to switch to t~e P,ension and
; GPf;Regulations.but had, failed to availofthe opportunity
, despite the notice dated 1?.111, September, ,1991 either because - F
\ .. of ignofance or some erroneous understanding.,Jhe period
:. for exercising the option was available till 30~ November, .1995. ·
,. The notice mentioned that pasting the seventh notice on the
' notice. . boards . of the;various
. .offices . of the RSEB . .would
. . . be·
.treated as sufficient notice to all the rel.ired employees of the <- G
:·· _I

·.··,,-- ···;····~.-, ..•.. ·,.--~·-. 1 ,· i;~-- 1 -: ,:',· f~r','.:-:!-.:·,1;~,::·1_~·:,r--._, ,,·.·
'
._,,1 ·

•
· 20. The f"l-
eighth
.·; - , ..
and final notice
' .... -..- ,;"_,--. ' '
~'!Ii
was issued
•• _.,.,-,_.,,, ,.,., ' :
by·•the RSEB
· ,•·. ~,.~.-. :~·.

111
on 4 February', 1997 in which it was stated that all employees
·· .. ::: ·.' ~ .-;!:;'-.::· f .\·i,~ 1 ,;;_;;,;.-'"' · • ~'.> J'.0 f;~_-~;.-,,:-; C~..:Fc'.i'..'. _;;.1 ~i! ;; ;(J.:;---~.:--! ~;'. ,,- :_;;
!<H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 13S.C.R.

A in regular pay scales on the cut-off date of 28th November, 1988
who could not avail the opportunity of exercising the switch-
over option but who were still in the services of the RSEB could
now exercise their option by 30th June, 1997. It was reiterated
that those employees who could not exercise their option before
B the final date would be deemed to have retained the CPF
benefits available to them. The RS.EB received the options of
5076 employees in response to the eighth notice.
21. Eventually, on 12th March, 1999 the RSEB
c cc1mmunicated a decision to the effect that several
opportunities had been given to the employees to switch over
to the Pension and GPF Regulations but despite this,
representations were pouring in to allow one more opportunity
to switch to the pension benefits. It was felt that it would not be
D desirable to provide any more such opportunities otherwise it
would become a never ending exercise. Therefore, it was
made clear that any request for allowing an opportunity to
exercise the switch-over option would not be entertained under
any circumstances.
E
22. In the meanwhile, a meeting of the Whole-Time
Members of the RSEB and the Heads of Department was held
on 4th January, 1995 in which it was decided, inter a/ia, that
although the last date for exercising the switch-over option had
F expired In 1991, representations were being received to
extend the date. Therefore, looking into the difficulty faced by
the employees, it was decided that the facility of exercising
the switch-over option would be available to the existing
employees up to six months prior to the date of retirement,
G that is, the employee could opt for Pension and GPF
Regulations while in service. According to the respondents,
by virtue of this decision, such of the employees who are still
in service can yet accept the switch-over option. But according
to the RSEB, the decision taken on 4th January, 1995 stands
H
RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUTVITRAN NIGAM LTD.v. · 501
DWARKA PRASAD KOOLWAL [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

obliterated by the sixth notice given on '8th May, 1995, the A
seventh notice given on 22nd August, 1995 and the eighth notice
given on 4th February, 1997 read with the final decision taken
on 12th March, 1999 closing the receipt of switch-over options.
23.Atthis stage, it may be mentioned thatthe Rajasthan 8
Legislature enacted the Rajasthan Power Sector Reforms Act,
1999 which resulted in the Rajasthan Power Sector Reforms
Transfer Scheme 2000, which in turn resulted in the unbundling
of the RSEB into five companies. The five companies are
owned and controlled by the Government of Rajasthan and c
their employees have been absorbed on the same terms and
conditions governing them while they were employees of the
RSEB. The unbundling of the RSEB does not have any
consequence so far as the decision in these appeals is
concerned but this fact is mentioned only to complete the D
record. For convenience, the expression RSEB refers to both
the erstwhile RSEB as well as the entities post the unbundling
of the RSEB.
Proceedings in the High Court E
24. Consequent to the decision communicated on 12th
March, 1999 whereby the option of switching over from the
CPF Scheme to the Pension and GPF Regulations was not
extended, a large number of aggrieved employees of the F
RSEB filed Writ Petitions in the Rajasthan High Court. In these
Writ Petitions the challenge was to the closure of the switch·
over option. The writ petitioners also claimed a declaration of
being entitled to all the pension benefits available under the
Pension and GPF' Regulations upon their retirement. These G
Writ Petitions came to be disposed of by a learned Single
Judge of the Rajasthan High Court by an order dated 28th
February, 2008 with a direction that the writ petitioners may
submit a representation to the RSEB voicing their grievances
H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.

A and the RSEB should decide the representation within a
month.

25. The order dated 28th February, 2008 was followed in
several other Writ Petitions filed by aggrieved employees and
8 they made as many as 30 representations to the RSEB
pursuant to the various orders passed by the Rajasthan High
Court in over 30 writ petitions. By an extremely detailed order
dated 26th June, 2008 the RSEB disposed of these
representations in which the issues raised were clearly
c formulated and findings given on each of the issues. A little
later, we shall refer to two of the issues relevant for our purposes
and the finding thereon.
26. Not being satisfied with the order dated 26th June,
D 2008 a large number of writ petitions came to be filed in the
Rajasthan High Court challenging that order and praying for
quashing and setting aside the decision dat~d 12th March,
1999. It was further prayed that the writ petitioners (who are
respondents before us) be held entitled to the benefits in
E accordance with the Pension and GPF Regulations. This batch
of Writ Petitions was heard by a learned Single Judge and by
his elaborate judgment and order dated 21st October, 2011
the writ petitions were allowed and the communication dated
26th June, 2008 as well as the decision dated 12th March, 1999
F were quashed and set aside. It was made clear that all the
existing employees of the RSEB would be covered by the
Pension and GPF Regulations including the writ petitioners
and the legal representatives of the deceased employees
interested in exercising the switch-over option from the CPF
G to the Pension and GPF Regulations. It was further directed
tha,t there was no need for any other writ petition to be filed by
any existing employee and that the benefit of the order dated
21st October, 2011 would inure to the benefit of all similarly
situate employees.
H
. .Vi. RAJAS.THAN RAJYAVIDYUTVITRAN NIGAM LTD.v.• t503
{ I
DWARKAPRASAD KOOLWAL [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.] )
27. Being aggrieved bythedeci3ion of the learned Single A
Judge ihe RSEB preferred writ,appealsbefore the Division·
Bench.of the High Court. By a judgment and order dated 17"'
May, 2012 (impugned) the High Court dismissed the appeals I;
,,i:
relying entirely on the elaborate order passed by the learned I Ii
. Single Judge. It is under these circumstarices.thatthepresent ,B
batch of appeals preferred by the RSEB is before us. For 111
'
.
'

convenience, we have taken the facts from Civil Appeal arising "
out of SLP (C) No.29639 of 2012. ·
Submissfons
, . :C .· i,
28. For the sake of convenience a summary of the various .
notices issued by the RSEB are put down in the form of a
'Chaft:-'1:,,:,_-~:_'_:.'<·~: _ ,r .:.;-:ii; ;~'.:.-,i_, ·,:·:J:_,i·, c;,_-1~'.'._'.1u::11 .'..:;:~ __
{ ;:
No. Notice
'·-
"•''~{;."

·date '
.. '.'~·'.':·ri:•:-1:·.·• '.·;1-:· ·'-''
.Applica·. • .• Validity,
~ bmtv .... , '"-l _, · • d
1
) ,
.:.''<'':)!

Special. J
\','.--':-~

Publicity.
1~;:,,"'1,.;"!lhf;r·

Remark, Options
reason'' 1 ;i .i 1 ..,, (,. •• ~·..-.:.Y' ·; rece!Ved
l.D . :-· I
1" · 06.01.• A11;11.···, •90days" .:,;,;:;._Th W1de1 n1· Onnan·o 2741.'.'·" I 1··
' ;; 1989 employee~;
through
r
•.··u . 1 ; ;.' pub:1ci:y · receiptoL , :c•.;'.-!
option. ·•.•
i .i
... r :.: J; J . -.- . -- : . . , / ... ·;:~.er ~-1 Pasl.\ngon· employee: ·3=:-·-:="
. .. ' tha notce , deemed ! -_-; --, 0 .
.\) :> ·; -·:; - board to have
u· :. -:'! (, -~->-. -q 1-' ;1·. ·::-:: :: ·...:::1:1 · retained·-,_ J:'_~): __;
E
1
-~, -;';~1,~- ·1 --~'~;;..: :~--: ;_-~::('! -.~:·~i r:.. rJ! i. ;i; -.;:..;-~Cf~:-) ·_1 J ii'•--,; 1;
. · ., • benefi~ ..
2'' 04.04. -do.· 45days · Non.publiaiuon· No • ·· , .. ,~ 31217' ·
j; .'. 1969:: ,';. ,;:: '•: :.·! t~•:c.
- ofHin,divers1on s0 eafic
. '-. ' j ,,.,..,,
l_i->11' I ;l
~ r 1•···•J
• ',.,

, .__._'~·-'---+-~~-1-~~~+-~~~"""m~en~tio~n--1~~--1~·~-1
3'' N\
19.05. 30.06.1G90 Relerences ·cdo:' Onnon- 3972"~ . =F
1990°'.: ~fi1P~oyees· ~;;~ '-{;.~. :-: received from· · ·i·~·'.,,:·: receiptoL·" ,:-.-1iJ1·_J
::1 1

,, 1 .,~ ~or•, ITTdud:ng _. ~i ::;Ji,.
: various comers ·..--uf opjori. , .-;;-;i·1:J
. . ". daily rated \ requesting. for' err~loyee '
f!J'.! andwork' · ·,.ai:_ifil:J anextansion:.-t ~o ~--;~deemed:::) :-_,·1q~:t;
;i:i: ,_, t ; charced )-~ :::~1~i :~~--;:: .:--,,-:1 .. tohave .:,
retitined , ..... 1 ·: 1•
, , : ; · ' empiOyees ' ; --t-,..,,., ,. ... , ,_._,, .. ) •

'. 1-···'.' i-, 11 J, , ,. ---:;:~: r !
;'_ )" -, : C_PF;~!--r
0

·it '\ . ' - i•11 ,._ ·.·. - _;.._i • '-.-,,. ,.,. _,"' '.-. t:enelits. --
4' 17 09 All ~o days
1991 emn!ovees
5• . 2701. Wotk . 15031993 ·dO· · ·dO· 2749
· ' : ; 1993 ·1 d1arged ..\ : ; i 'l); ·i ~-;~ ,1 ~-i-, _;j ; -u;.. ~ i ~_:u :Jr
1- ::d- f \':}/i rebredartt:!;
· deceased
;H
I
l I
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13S.C.R.

A
r.., 10805 IA!; . 31031996 I .. do. ·do· 4460
I 1995 emolovees
71
' ' 22 03 Retired 30111995 Representa~- IPasting on
1
1985 employees 1
ons received 111e notice
I from renred board I
emplovees I I
B 81· 04 02 All 30 C51997 !
o~non 5076
1997 employees receipt of
optic~ I
I
empl~yee I
! deer·ed
iI
to have I
!
reta:necl
c ere I
_J
j
I
: , be~eflts :

29. Two things are quite clear from the narration of facts
and the chart. Firstly, that several opportunities were given to
D the employees of the RSEB (and for prolonged periods) to
switch over from the CPF Scheme to the Pension and GPF
Regulations. It is stated in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the
RSEB that in response to the various notices, out of about
50,000 of its employees, as many as about 46,000 had
E exercised their option at different points of time to switch over
from the CPF Scheme to the Pension and GPF Regulations.
Therefore, if some of the employees did not make the switch-
over, it may be for reasons personal to them. Secondly, the
switch-over option was given to various categories of
F employees - regular employees, daily rated employees, work
charge employees, retired employees and legal
representative's of deceased employees. Within these
categories were included senior and junior officers, technical
and non-technical cadre. In other words, both high ranked and
G lower ranked staff were included for the purposes of the switch-
over option.
30. Given this factual background, it is prima facie difficult
to accept the contention of the respondents that they (about
H
RAJASTHAN RAJYAVIDYUTVITRAN NIGAM LTD.v. 505
DWARKAPRASAD KOOLWAL[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.)

700 of them and another 3000+ employees that they represent) A
were not aware of the Pension and GPF Regulations and
therefore, they were unable to exercise their option to switch
over before its closure by the decision dated 12th March, 1999. ~
31. To repel this prima facie view, some of the reasons B
given by the respondents for not exercising the switch-over
option are as follows and they form the backbone of their
submissions:
(1) They were not aware of the various notices issued
from time to time since Wide publicity was not given to C
all the notices. By way of an example, it has been
mentioned that in response to a query under the Right
to Information Act, 2005 it was admitted by the RSEB
that the notice dated 4th February, 1997 was not
0
received or circulated in Suratgarh.
-.
(2) Many of the respondents were posted In remote areas
of Rajasthan such as Jaisalmer, Barmer, Sirohi,
Banswara etc. There were no communication facilities
in these remote places and therefore they could not E
become aware of the notices Issued by the RSEB
from time to time.
(3) Many of the respondents belong to junior/technical
cadres like peons, vehicle drivers, helpers, pump F
operators, electricians, crane operators, chowkidars
etc. Given their status, It is difficult to assume that
they were aware of the switch-over option.
(4) The option letters required the respondents to G
specifically indicate whether they opt for continuing to
remain with the CPF Scheme or they opt to switch to
the Pension and GPF Regulations. This necessarily
means that each employee of the RSEB was required
H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.

A to be individually informed of the switch-over option.
Admittedly, individual notices were not sent to all the
employees of the RSEB.

Issue of awareness
8 32. As far as the awareness of the respondents of the
switch-over option is concerned, we have already mentioned
that out of about 50, 000 employees of the RSEB about 46, 000
of them had opted to switch over from the CPF Scheme to the
C Pension and GPF Regulations. In other words, less than 10%
of the employees did not opt to make a switch-over. These
19% employees were working with the RSEB at the relevant
time and it is generally unlikely that they would have been
'
unaware of the sea change for their monetary benefit in their
terms of service with the RSEB. We can appreciate that retired
0
employees of the RSEB who may have shifted out of the State
may possibly be unaware of the availability of the switch-over
option (although that is also unlikely over a prolonged period
of 8 years) but it is difficult to appreciate how a working
E employee of the RSEB who is in day to day touch with the
organization would be unaware of the switch-over option for
such a long period.
33. As regards the contention of the respondents that
tneir lack of awareness was due to the absence of adequate
F publicity being given to the switch-over option, we need only
mention that the chart given above indicates that even though
the notice dated 4th April, 1989 did not mention anything about
giving wide publicity to the switch-over option, yet more than
G 31,000 employees gave their option pursuant to that notice.
i:;ven thereafter, between 2,000 and 5,000+ employees
exercised their option whenever the notice for exercising the
syvitch-over option was issued. This clearly suggests to us that
wJde and adequate publicity was given to the various notices
H issued by the RBEB from time to time, even if it was not
I
RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUTVITRAN NIGAM L TD.v. i
. •1 1 507'
DWARKAPRASAD KOOLWAL [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]'
•
. specifically mentioned in each individual notice, otherwise A··
there could not have been. sucti an overwhelming response to l.
every notice resulting in as many as about46,000 employees.·
out'of 50,000 employees' of the RSEB opting to switch~over'.: I
from ttie CPF Scheme to the Pension and GPF Regulations::) . I
n2; / .'i '..:c1_ C. ~l! ~ (; c>~ i""-.\':": I' I J ~:; , . ..,. ,' r 1i_-: ;'. t,:-; r:';: ~ 1J ~::~~y1 ~ ~ '._ ; 0 :; '-y! B..:..
.... :34.To rebut the presumption of.their awareness.~ it is·
\······'-·'~-· · .. , , . , . , ; • . ·.- ' •.•••. ,.~_,_ .• , , . , •J-· -·· _._,,_ ,.,, -···· ' . - . . ...

submitted by the respondents that.all of.them were posted in .
. . remote
,,,, ... ). areas of Rajasthan
,_,,., ,,,,) • .. as Jaisalmer,
···'~---<•
such Bairner,
_,,_ .,,._,. Sirohi,
__...._,, ·''''
"·'--~-· ''••'.
0

1 · Banswara etc. and it is for this reason thatthey,were not aware ,
I of the switch-Over option:
'"''-'r'·'-"•·'••'•'• ,;
':Tilere'is~ nothing tc:i' suppori'this claim J' c),
•·--'' '~''•'''

I1
',> ), .,• I ' ' ,_ '·· ·- '_. ..

by .,,the respondents
•' - '-· ·~
except a bald statement.
' '•' , - ,, , , • , '·• . 'I ' __ , ·- . · ;.- . __ , ..., • , . '
Even otherwise, •
,_, ' - .... ·' ''-' . ' ', .... - . ,
the responde.nts were admittedly in transferable jobs and it is JI
•• ' '·-- , • • • ' I ' ...... \ · ' _, \ '; ' -··' • '',. '. , . ' ·- • ,._ ·•.• ' .. , I, • • • , _,,. ,.._,, · · ' , .. , ',_,

!. unlikely that each one.of them continued to remain in one or
!
the other remote area of Rajasthan for as long as 8 years from
I .1989 to 1997." On ttie contrary,· it wa's riot denied during the: D 1
h'earingof these'appeals'that the 'respondents•tiad been"J
transferred at least once during the period of 8 years wtien the.·
. ''switch-over
. .;, __,.) ~
option was available.
. . . : ,._,-.,_,_,; " - " ..
Where theywere·
)., .. , ·-11: " " '
~- 1 ..
·~-'"_)
posted
--'-""

~~ :0:~1~~~ ~h=s:n:tJ~~~r~~~J;~~tft i~~~6L:it~~i~:J E:i
0
·
· ,-., ;,.·,,1._._,",::.__, • .__.. , .... ;;· •. :. ·_,i_;-: ... ,-;'i•·-L: -~,-..1..J .:.;c_),._·_,11,;.:;._,11 •. --·1
.. - that the respondents
-;.-.1;, -;_.,_·,,.' •._) •'1 ,,_:j
were always posted m remote areas of,
_-1\;;J li· l..-:-.· .• ·;_. •.1: J·,':1-::.'.''•' '.~:-;--'· -'" !::-; 1 1!»-'-' l
. Rajasthan We, therefore, cannot
•_,, '_.,j\) Jn;H_-·;::.-'d~.t.Ji_.-i
.\1» ;..
accept such a bald statement I 1 ;';.:·) ,..)
( } , I . ) , __ •_,_, ;.•f_",_•,J1~.:._,I•-~!

, , ~~jtD~if~~~~;~~~-~~~,i .-:~: J::.rii J;·,,.:~:r~·ii~L ·:~~;L:r:\0:_~{1 1:•)1!J ~~i ;~j::!;~>:
y: 135, That apart. from the rejoinder affidavitfiled by the; F'
·· RSEB it is·Clear ttiafquite a few'of.the'_respondents'were t
posted in Jaisalmer and Barinerwhich are certainly not remote;
of
parts Rajasth'an';; ·As regards Sirohi and Banswara, it has1
been stated in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the RSEB that as 1
many as:1476:erriployeesfrom these!(and other remote G.'
. places) tiad exerCised their option to switch-over from the CPF:
Scheme to the Pension
.,. ,·,-· ·'_.';•; f.,•,- ••·· :..;<
and GPF :;,,·,,
11,;i .. ;,,
Regulations.
.• •. ,._
Given thesel,._~ ,~,,: i .i:.-.:·,~

facts, it is doubtful
:.,- ,,;,!,-
that the respondents .were
_.,._,·..;_, _ : . , , , :
blissfully
.• <'.···'·'
unaware.
f~_,·;1.,.(,,-,.'
C· _ ci-.J:_:1/,.',''i
of the existence of the Pension and GPF Regulations.
Hi
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.

A 36. It was submitted by the respondents that apart from
the notice dated 6th January, 1989 none of the other notices
were given wide publicity and in fact the subsequent notices
do not even mention that wide publicity was required to be
given. It is for this reason that the respondents, located in
B remote areas of Rajasthan were unaware of the Pension and
GPF Regulations. To support their contention that wide publicity
was not given to subsequent notices, the respondents relied
upon the response dated 26th November, 2007 to a query
raised under the Right to Information Act, 2005 which states
C that the notice dated 4th February, 1997 was not received in
the office of the Executive Engineer (Prot.) Ratangarh nor was
it dispatched to the Assistant Engineer (Prot.) Suratgarh.
37. Reliance was also placed upon a similar letter dated
D 5th December, 2007 which is again with reference to the notice
dated 4th February, 1997 and its receipt in Ratangarh and
dispatch to Suratgarh.
38. Apart from the fact that the reference pertains to only
E one notice, it cannot be said that this would conclusively
demonstrate or conclusively suggest that the notice dated 4th
FE~bruary, 1997 was not received in other parts of Rajasthan
or other places close to Suratgarh. It has been stated by the
RSEB in their rejoinder affidavit that so far as the office in
F Suratgarh is concerned, there were 4 employees who had
joined service in Suratgarh post-1988 and who were
automatically entitled to the benefit of the Pension and GPF
Regulations and 2 persons who were similarly placed as the
respondents had in fact exercised their switch-over option.
G Therefore, it is not that the employees in Suratgarh were
completely unaware of the Pension and GPF Regulations.
39. It also cannot be assumed on the basis of the above
that the employees in Suratgarh who were allegedly unaware
H
. RAJASTl-IAN RAJYAVIDYUTVITRAN NIGAM LTD.v. 509
DWARKA PRASAD KOOLWAL [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

of the Pension and GPF Regulations through the notice dated A
41h February, 1997 were also not aware of the half a dozen
previous notices. Additionally, these allegedly unaware
persons have not been identified by the respondents and the
submission made in this regard is quite vague.
B
40. We have mentioned above that the reason why some
employees did not switch over from the CPF Scheme to the
Pension and GPF Regulations is perhaps because of reasons
personal to them. But at the same time, it must be pointed out
that the respondents have virtually let the cat out of the bag by ·C
an averment made by them in their writ petition filed before
the High Court. The background to the averment is given below.
41. The RSEB passed an order on 23'd August, 1997 in
which it was stated that the Government of Rajasthan had D
recently promulgated the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1996 as amended from time to time. In view of this, the
RSEB decided that the pension, family pension and
commutation of pension in respect of its employees would be
computed under the specific provisions of the Rajasthan Civil E
Services (Pension) Rules, 1996.
42. In their writ petition filed in the High Court the
respondents stated that by virtue of this order dated 23'd August,
1997, the calculation of pension, family pension and F
commutation of pension under the Pension and GPF
.Regulations, became more beneficial to the employees as
against the provisions in the CPF Scheme. It is perhaps this
computation benefit made available to the employees of the
.RSEB with the adoption of the Rajasthan Civil Services G
(Pension) Rules, 1996 that prompted the respondents to
switch-over from the CPF Scheme to the Pension and GPF
Regulations. Unfortunately, by that time the period for making
· the switch-over had expired in terms of the 81h notice dated 4th
H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014,] 13 S.C.R.

A' February, 1997. Therefore, since the respondents were unable
to take advantage of the beneficial computation under the
Pension and GPF Regulations read with the Rajasthan Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 they seem to have set up a
case of being unaware of the various notices issued by the
B RSEB from time to time over a period of 8 years.

43. All that we can infer from the conduct of the
respondents is that they went along with the CPF Scheme so
long as it was beneficial to them, but when the calculation of
C' pension, family pension and commutation of pension
underwent an alteration pursuant to the order dated 23rd August, .
1997 the respondents had a change of heart and sought to
take advantage of the revised manner of computation provided
for in the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. We
D can only say that the argument of a lack of awareness of the
switch-ov~r option appears to be nothing but a self-serving
argument.
44. Another facet of this argument (which was feebly
E urged) is to found in Issue No.5 dealt with by the RSEB in it.s
order dated 26 1h June, 2008 in the following words:

"Issue raised

5. That the erstwhile RSEB adopted R.C.S. (Pension)
'
F Rules, 1996 of the Govt. of Rajasthan vide its order no.
~Ssf?/F & R/F.3 (1 O)/D-42 dated 23.8.1997 but did not
,, provide any opportunity to its employees for exercising
option und.er RSEB Employees Pension Regulation,
1988 ..
G
Findings

11.· ISSU!=l5: 1 •

that the erstwhile RSEB through RSEB Regulations -
H 1988 issued separate pension rules for their employees.
RAJASTHAN RAJYAVIDYUTVITRAN NIGAM LTD.v. 511
DWARKAPRASAD KOOLWAL[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

But in the year 1996, Finance Department, GoR issued A
· new Pension Rules in which computation of pension,
family pension, and commutation as well as amount of
pensions etc. was amended or revised. RSEB vide order
No.42/23.8.1997 opted only computation for the amount
of pension, family pension and commutation, other B
provisions of RSEB Pension Regulations, 1988
remaining unchanged. It has no relation to the option.
Thus the applicants were not entitled for any re-option
for pension even after the order dt. 23.8.1997. There
were already given 8 opportunities to switch over to C
pension but they retained CPF benefits only."

45. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the
RSEB that any and every change in the computation of pension
or in the Pension Regulations (either of the RSEB or the D
Rajasthan Government) does not warrant a fresh option being
offered to the respondents.
46. With regard to the submission that the respondents
belong to the junior or technical cadre consisting of low paid E
staff such as peons, vehicle drivers, helpers etc. we need only
say that, as pointed out in the rejoinder affidavit of the RSEB,
about 100 of the respondents are senior level officers holding
posts of Head of Office and Head of Department with the
RSEB. As per the Pension and GPF Regulations, they receive F
the option forms from the employees, countersign them and
then forward them to the Controller of Accounts. It is extremely
difficult to accept their contention that they were unaware of
the switch-over option.
G
47.As regards the junior technical and non-technical staff,
one can assume that the RSEB has a pyramidal structure of
staff, with the greater strength of staff being junior technical
and non-technical. If that is presumably so, then of the about
46,000 employees who have exercised their option, the H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.

A majority would consist of junior technical and non-technicai'
staff. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to believe that while
such an extremely large number of employees were aware of
the switch-over option, despite their lower hierarchical status,
the remaining junior technical and non-technical were unaware
B of the availability of the switch-over option, and that too over a
prolonged period of 8 years.

48. Interestingly, the issues framed in the order dated
1
26 June, 2008 passed by the RSEB (impugned in the High
h

c Court) does not include the alleged lack of awareness of the
availability of the switch-over option on the part of the
employees who made the 30 representations. This argument
seems to have been raised for the first time in the writ petitions
filed by the respondents. But that is not really material for a
D decision in these appeals.

49. Ultimately the issue boils down to the overall
assessment of the awareness level of the employees of the
RSEB based on the available data. Based on the facts
E presented before us, on a composite consideration of the facts
and taking a pragmatic view of the situation, a reasonable and
legitimate inference can be drawn that the respondents were
aware of the notices issued for the exercise of the switch-over
option but they chose not to exercise that option either for
F personal reasons or perhaps because it did not suit them. The
position changed in the second half of 1997, by which time it
was too late for them to do a rethink.
50. One of the contentions urged by the respondents as
G writ petitioners in the High Court was that each employee should
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 Singh 1 but was not directly canvassed
H 1 (2009) 14 sec 793
RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD.v. 513
DWARKA PRASAD KOOLWAL [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

before us. In any event the decision relied upon by the High A
Court was considered and distinguished in PEPSU Road
Transport Corporation, Patia/a v. Manga/ Singh and
Others. 2

51. The contention in this regard is a bit collateral, and it 8
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 and GPF Regulations. This could be done only if the
option form was made available to each employee. c
52. In Dakshin Haryana Bij/i Vitran Nigam the
instructions relating to the exercise of the switch-over option
specifically mentioned that 'These instructions may please be
got noted from all the employees and acknowledge the receipt D
of the letter." 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
that the respondent had no knowledge about the options called
by the appellants. Consequently, the denial of pension benefits E
to the respondent was held bad.

53. In PEPSU RTC v. Mangal Singh the decision
rendered in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam was
distinguished on facts since in the PEP SU appeal there was F
no condition of noting from the employees or serving individual
notices in the Pension Scheme or Regulations. This Court went
on to say:

"Furthermore, when notice or knowledge of the Pension
Scheme can be reasonably inferred or gathered from G
the conduct of the respondents in their ordinary course
of business and from surrounding circumstances, then,
it will constitute a sufficient noti<'.e in the eye of the law."
2
(2011) 11 sec 702 H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.

A 54. The fact situation in the present appeals is somewhat
similar. In this context, we may infer that under such
circumstances, it was equally the responsibility of the
respondents to collect the option forms from the concerned
authority, fill them up and submit them to the competent
B authority. It is too much to expect that even though it was not
necessary for each individual employee to be served with each
notice, yet there was a duty cast on the RSEB to ensure that
each employee is furnished a copy of the option form. If such a
contention is accepted, it will amount to circuitously accepting
C that, though the employees need not individually be served
the notices, yet they would have to be individually served with
a copy of the option form.
55. The second substantive contention urged by learned
o counsel for the respondents was that the Whole-Time Members
of the RSEB had taken a decision on 4th January, 1995 to the
following effect:
"It was brought to notice that the last date for giving option
for Pension Scheme by the employees under CPF
E scheme had expired in 1991 and many representations
were being received to extend this date. Looking to the
difficulty of the employees, it was decided that the facility
of opting for Pension Scheme will also be available upto
6 months before retirement to the serving employees only
F
i.e., the employee can opt for GPF Pension Scheme
while in service".
56. This decision was communicated by a letter dated
2"d February, 1995 to all concerned and according to the
G respondents they were now given an option to switch from the
CPF Scheme to the Pension and GPF Regulations at any time
upto six months prior to their retirement from service.
Consequently: it was s.ubmitted that the closure of the
switch-over option by the decision dated 12th March, 1999 was
H notjustified.
RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD.v. 515
DWARKA PRASAD KOOLWAL [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

57. This contention is also liable for rejection. A
Subsequent to the decision taken by the Whole-Time Members
on 4th January, 1995 the RBEB issued a notice dated 8th May,
1995 which effectively superseded the decision taken on 4th
January, 1995. In terms of the notice dated 8th May, 1995 the
Chairman of the RSEB in consultation with other Whole-Time B
Members extended the period of exercising the switch-over
option till 31st March, 1996, that is, for a period of more than
320 days. Consequently, the decision taken on 4th January,
1995 was given a go-bye or overridden and adequate time
was given by the notice dated 8th May, 1995 to the employees C
of the RSEB to make a switch-over, in modification of the
decision dated 4th January, 1995.
58. To further benefit the employees of the RSEB (and
effectively confirm the demise of the decision dated 4th January, D
1995) another notice was issued on 4th February, 1997 by which
the Chairman of the RSEB in consultation with other Whole-
Time Members extended the period of exercise of the switch-
over option till 30th June, 1997. In view of these facts which
demonstrate that the decision dated 4th January 1995 was no E
longer extant, the respondents cannot bank upon that decision
in support of their contention that they can exercise the switch-
over option upto six months prior to the date of retirement. The
final nail in the coffin (if it was at all necessary) came through
the decision dated 12th March, 1999. F
59. This issue was also considered by the RSEB in its
order dated 26th June, 2008 in the following words, and we
endorse that view:
G
"Issue raised
3. That all doubts and worries for submitting option for
pension by the employees came to rest in the year 1995
when the WTMS and HODs of the erstwhile RSEB took
H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014) 13 S.C.R.

A a decision that the facility of opting for pension scheme
will also be available upto 6 months before retirement of
the serving employees only i.e. the employee can opt
GPF Pension Scheme while in service. The employee
will himself be allowed to give option and not his nominee
B after death and reliance has been placed on circular/letter
no. RSEB/S/1/F.4(122)/D-155 dated 2-2-1995.

Findings

lssue3:
c
That it is true that in a meeting of WTM, such decision
was taken but it was simply minutes of discussions and
. was not a decision of competent Board of RSEB. In
pursuance of minutes of WTM meeting it was never
D placed before Board for approval and no order/
amendment was ever issued of the nature of WTM
minutes. Therefore, it has never been implemented. The
applicants have no right to raise it after lapse of long
period of 13 years. However, even after this decision,
E general decision was taken by Board of RSEB to further
give opportunity mentioned herein under to opt for pension
and GPF, thus, the WTM decision was superseded.

1. No. RSEB/F&R/F.(Pen)/D.35 dated 8.5.1995
F
2. No. RSEB/F&R/F.(Pen)/D.61 dated 22.8.1995
3. No. RSEB/F&R/F.(Pen)/D.9 dated 4.2.1997
Thus, the decision of WTM required approval of
G competent Board on such policy matters. Further
Management vide letter/notice/order dated March 12,
1999 clari~ied that the date of option has been closed
and no requests will not be considered. Therefore, the
applicants cannot now take the excuse of WTM decision
H
RAJASTHAN RAJYAVIDYUTVITRAN NIGAM LTD.v. 517
DWARKAPRASAD KOOLWAL[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

of the year 1995 after lapse of a long period of 13 years A
as sufficient opportunities have already been given."
. 60. The final question that arises for consideration relates
to the right, if any, of the respondents to exercise the switch-
over option at any point of time or to have it kept alive by the B
RSEB for an indefinite period or at least till the superannuation
of the respondents.
61. In this regard, the definition of 'option' occurring in
· Regulation 2(o) of the Employees General Provident Fund C
Regulations, 1988 is important. An 'option' requires a written
consent of the existing employee to either continue with the
CPF Scheme or to opt for the GPF Scheme within a period of
90 days from the commencement of the GPF Regulations. The
period of 90 days commences with the GPF Regulations D
coming into force with effect from 281h November, 1988. The
definition also provides that an employee who does not
exercise the option within the period of 90 days shall be
deemed to have exercised his option in favour of the existing
CPF Scheme. It is also provided that it will be "the personal E
responsibility of the concerned employee/officer to ensure that
his option reaches timely in the office of the COA (P&F), RSEB,
Jaipur." In other words, not only is a time limit statutorily
prescribed by the GPF Regulations for exercising the option,
but a responsibility has.been cast on the employee to ensure F
that his option reaches the concerned authorities within the
time prescribed.
62. Regulation 2(o) of the Employees General Provident
Fund Regulations, 1988 reads as follows:-
G
"Option" means a written consent of the existing
employee to become either member of the Employees
General Provident Fund Scheme, 1988 or to continue
as member of the existing CPF/FPF scheme covered
H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.

A under the EPF Act, 1952 within a period of 90 days from
the date of commencement of Employees General
Provident Fund Scheme, 1988 by the RSEB. Any
existing employee who does not exercise the option
within specified period of 90 days shall be deemed to
B have exercised option in favour of the existing CPF/FPF
Schemes covered under the provisions of Employees
Provident Fund Act, 1952. The option once exercised
or deemed to have been exercised shall be considered
as final and no representation in this respect shall be
c considered valid for any revision. It will be the personal
responsibility of the concerned employee/officer to
ensure that his option reaches timely in the office of the
COA (P &F), RSEB, Jaipur. Provided that a Board
employee who is on that day out of India/within India on
D
leave or deputation or foreign service or under
suspension, may exercise option within one month from
the date he takes over the charge of the post, in case he
does not get any intimation for exercising option, within
E one month from the date he is required to exercise it."
63. Notwithstanding the aforesaid Regulation providing
for a time limit of 90 days for exercising the switch-over option,
the appellant administratively continued to give one opportunity
after another to the employees of the RSEB to exercise their
F switch-over option. This continued for'a period of 8 years and
during that period if an employee chose not to exercise his
option, it was deemed that he would continue to avail the
benefits under the CPF Scheme. Consequently, if this had
any adverse financial impact on the employee in the long run
G (and realized by him in 1997-98), he had no one else but himself
to blame.
64. As regards the Pension Scheme, the admitted
position is that an employee could not continue with the CPF
H Scheme and also avail the benefits of the Pension Scheme
RAJASTHAN RAJYAVIDYUTVITRAN NlGAM LTD.v. 519
DWARKAPRASAD KOOLWAL [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

under the Employees Pension Regulations, 1988. However, A
an employee could avail of both the GPF Scheme as well as
the Pension Scheme.
65. The Employees Pension Regulations, 1988 also
defines 'option' in Regulation 3(1) thereof. 'Option' means a B
written consent of the existing employee for either availing the
pension and gratuity benefits or to continue to be a member of
the CPF Scheme. In other words, a switch-over option was
made available to the employee under the Pension Regulations
as well.
66. Regulation 3(1) of the Employees Pension Regulation,
1988 reads as follows:
"Option" means a written consent of the existing regular
employee for Pensionary and Gratuity benefits on the D
same lines/Rules as are being allowed to the employees
of erstwhile employees of the E & M Department opted
Board's service with Pensionary benefits or to continue
to be the member of the CPF/EPF with benefits of RSEB
Gratuity Rules, 1972 or Jodhpur CPF Scheme with E
benefit of gratuity under the Gratuity Act, 1972.
Note :-Any person who is not covered underthe definition
of employee shall not be entitled to opt for pensionary
and gratuity benefits as per Board's/Govt. rules/ F
regulations."
67. When the Pension Regulations and the GPF
Regulations are read together, the necessary conclusion is
that an employee must give his option for either continuing to G
be a member of the CPF Scheme or to switch over to the
Pension and GPF Regulations. This optiqn has to be exercised
within a period of 90 days from the cut-off date, that is, 28 1h
November, 1988. But the RSEB, in its wisdom, chose to extend
the time for exercising the switch-over option over a period of H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.

A 8 years by giving several opportunities to the employees
through its notices.

68. The right of an employee to switch over was, therefore,
limited in time by the Pension and GPF Regulations. However,
B administrative orders issued by the RSEB from time to time
extended the period for exercising the option. No employee
had any inherent right to either demand an extension of the
period for exercising the switch-over option or claim a right to
exercise the switch-over option at any time prior to his
. c retirement, and no such right has been shown to us.
69. But, learned counsel for the respondents finally
submitted that pension is not a charity or a bounty and an
employee is entitled to earn his pension. There can be no
D doubt about this proposition but when two schemes are
available to an employee, one being the CPF Scheme and
the other being the Pension Scheme, it is for the employee to
choose the scheme that he feels more comfortable with and
appropriate for his purposes. No employee can switch over
E back and forth from one scheme to another as per his
convenience. Once an employee has chosen to be a part of a
particular scheme, he continues to remain a member of that
sc:heme unless an option to switch over to another scheme is
given to him.
F
70. Insofar as the present appeals are concerned, the
respondents who are members of the CPF Scheme were given
several opportunities of switching over to the Pension Scheme
and the GPF Scheme under the Pension Regulations and the
G GPF Regulations respectively but they chose not to do so. The
question whether under these circumstances pension is a
bounty or a charity becomes completely irrelevant. The
entitlement to pension was available to the respondents but
they chose not to avail the entitlement for reasons personal to
H them. Having taken a decision in this regard the respondents
RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD.v. 521
DWARKAPRASAD KOOLWAL[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

cannot now raise an argument of pension not being a bounty A
and therefore requiring the RSEB to give them another option
to switch over to the Pension and GPF Regulations.

71. Under the circumstances, we find no merit in the
contentions urged by the respondents and consequently, the B
appeals of the RSEB deserve to be allowed.
Civil Appeal No. 7503/2014 (Arising out of SLP {C)
No.30577 of 2012 (from Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.248
of 2012 in CWP No.13401 of 2008)
c
72. In this appeal, it is submitted by learned counsel that
the facts are slightly different from the rest of the appeals. It
was submitted that the writ petitioner had submitted his option
on 20 1h February, 1996 and that was forwarded to the
concerned authorities on 61h March, 1996. D

. 73. By a letter dated 1Qth April, 1996, the writ petitioner
was informed that since his option was conditional, it could
not be accepted. The writ petitioner responded to this by
making a representation dated 201h April, 1996 to the effect E
that there was no condition attached to the exercise of option.
Nevertheless, he clarified that the alleged condition may be
treated as deleted and his option form may be considered.
However, it appears that the option form of the writ petitioner
was not considered by the concerned authorities and that led F
him to file a writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court.
Civil Appeal No. 7570/2014 (Arising out of SLP (C)
No. 9990 of 2013 (from Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.
237 of 2012 in CWP No. 1079 of 2008) G
74. Learned counsel submitted that the writ petitioner
gave his switch-over option well in time and in fact deductions
from his salary had been made under the GPF Scheme for
several months thereafter.
H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 13 S.C.R.

A 75. It appears that the reason for not accepting the option
given by the writ petitioner was that he had taken a housing
loan under the CPF Scheme and was requested by a letter
dated 18th March, 2000 to return the amount so that his switch-
over option could be considered. Since he failed to do so, his
B option was not accepted. The writ petitioner denied receipt of
the letter dated 18th March, 2000 and reiterated that deductions
had been made from his salary under the GPF Scheme .
.Civil Appeal No. 7564/2014 (Arising out of SLP (C}
c No. 9983 of 2013 (from Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.257
of 2012 in CWP No. 12230 of 2009}
76. It is submitted that the writ petitioner exercised his
option in 1996 and that was forwarded to the competent
authority by his controlling officer (Executive Engineer at
0
Bhilwara) by a letter dated 30th March, 1996. Though the option
form was received well within time, it was not accepted.
77. The entire facts of these cases are not before us nor
has the learned Single Judge of the High Court specifically
E discussed these cases.
78. Consequently, we are not in a position to give any
decision in these cases in view of the absence of full facts.
We are of the view that the more appropriate course of action
F to adopt in these matters would be to remand them to a Single
Judge of the High Court for fresh consideration on merits after
hearing the writ petitioners and the RSEB.
79. No other distinct or partially dissimilar case was
G pointed out to us by any learned counsel although the learned
Single Judge has made a reference to a few of them.
Conclusion
80. All the appeals are allowed but with no order as to
H costs. Insofar as Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C)
RAJASTHAN RAJYAVIDYUTVITRAN NIGAM LTD.v. 523
DWARKA PRASAD KOOLWAL [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

No.30577 of 2012, SLP (C) No.9990 of 2013 and SLP (C) A
No.9983 of 2013 are concerned they are remitted to a Single
Judge of the High Court for a fresh consideration on merits.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Appeals disposed of.