RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & OTHERSversusMADU GIRI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR.

                      [2013) 3 S.C.R. 464


A   RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
                     & OTHERS
                               v
           MADU GIRi (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR.
                (Civil Appeal No. 5274 of 2008)
B                       APRIL 26, 2013

            [P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.]

         Service Law - Pension - Respondents-employees of
C appellant-State Road Transport Corporation - Held: Not
  eligible to claim pensionary benefits under the Pension
  Scheme in view of non-compliance with the essential
  conditions stipulated in the Regulations governing the
  Pension Scheme - Rajasthan State Road Transport
D Corporation Employees Pension Regulations, 1989 - Clause
    3.
       The respondents-employees of the appellant-
  Corporation retired from service and were paid
  Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) including the share
E of employer's contribution. Subsequently, the Rajasthan
  State Road Transport Corporation Employees Pension
  Regulations, 1989 came into force in terms whereof
  option was given to the existing employees as well as
  those employees who retired before coming into force of
F these Regulations. However, before acceptance of option
  and grant of benefit, condition was placed on the
  employees to refund the employer's share of CPF with
  interest. The respondents- employees exercised their
  option in favour of the pension scheme under the
G Regulations, but did not deposit the amount of
  employer's share of CPF with interest in lumpsum within
  the stipulated time. Consequently, their claim for grant of
  pensionary benefit was rejected by the appellant-
  Corporation. Writ petitions were filed against the decision
H                             464
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. 465
         MADU GIRi (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
of the Corporation: The High Court directed the              A
Corporation to accept the option submitted by the
respondents-employees with regard to grant of pension
and to allow the same to them by deducting the amount
of excess provident fund with interest.
                                                             B
    The question involved in the present appeals was:
Whether the employees of the appellant-Rajasthan State
Road Transport Corporation are eligible to claim
pensionary benefits under the Pension Scheme in view
of the non-compliance with the essential conditions          C
stipulated in the Regulations which govern the said
Pension Scheme.

    Allowing the appeals, the Court

     HELD:1. The view taken by the High Court is not in      D
consonance with the conditions presecribed in the said
Regulations. The concerned employees retired from
service in 1991 and 1992 and after retirement they were
paid CPF including the share of employer's contribution.
Hence, as per Clause 3 of the Regulations, no right          E
accrued to the appellants/employees to claim pensionary
benefits without first depositing the amount and
complying with the Regulations. In the facts and
circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid
down by this Court in the Pepsu Road Transport
Corporation case, impugned orders passed by the High         F
Court cannot be sustained in law. [Paras 5, 7 and 9] [468-
C; 469-A-B; 470-B]]
     Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v. Mangat
Singh and Others (2011) 11 SCC 702: 2011 (6) SCR 564 -       G
relied on.
                    Case Law Reference:
    2011 (6) SCR 564        relied on           Para 8
                                                             H
    466      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 3 S.C.R.


A       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    5274 of 2008.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 11.10.2006 of the High
    Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil
    Special Appeal (W) No. 212 of 2006.
8
                                   WITH
    C.A. No. 952 of 2009

          Puneet Jain, Ruchika Gohil, Sushi! Kumar Jain, B.K. Pal,
c P.N. Jha, V.K. Biju, V.K. Verma for the appearing parties.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. The short question involved in these
  appeals is : Whether the employees of the appellant-Rajasthan
D State Road Transport Corporation are eligible to claim
  pensionary benefits under the Pension Scheme in view of the
  non-compliance with the essential conditions stipulated in the
  Regulations which govern the said Pension Scheme?

E       2. Admittedly, the concerned employees [Madugiri and
  Yakub Khan, respondents (since deceased) in Civil Appeal
  No.5274 of 2008 and late Nathu Singh, respondent's husband
  in Civil Appeal No. 952 of 2009] of the appellant-Corporation
  retired from service respectively on 31.1.1991, 31.1.1992 and
F 31.3.1992 and were paid Contributory Provident Fund (CPF)
  including the share of employer's contribution. On 11.1.1993,
  the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees
  Pension Regulations, 1989 (in short "the Regulations") came
  into force. As per clause 3(1) of the said Regulations, option
  was given to the existing employees as well as those
G employees who retired before coming into force of these
  Regulations but before acceptance of option and grant of
  benefit condition was placed on the employees to refund the
  employer's share of CPF with interest. The above named
  employees exercised their option in favour of the pension
H
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. 467
   MADU GIRi (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
scheme under the Regulations, but did not deposit the amount           A
of employer's share of CPF with interest in lumpsum within the
stipulated time.

     3. Clause 3(1) of the said Regulations reads as under:

     "'Option' means a written consent of the existing regular         8
     employees for pensionary and gratuity benefit along with
     the adoption of the General Provident Fund Regulations,
     1989 or to continue as member of the existing CPF
     scheme covered under the EPF Act, 1952 within a period
     of 90 days from the date of publication of RSRTC Pension          C
     Regulations. Any existing employee who does not
     exercise the option within specified period of 90 days
     shall be deemed to have exercised option in favour of the
     Pension and CPF Regulations.
                                                                       D
     The option once exercised or deemed to have been
     exercised shall be considered as final and no
     representation in this respect shall be considered valid for
     any revision. It will be for the personal responsibility of the
     departmental officer to ensure that his option reaches            E
     timely in the office of Dy. G.M. (P&F) RSRTC, Jaipur.

     xxx           xxx             xxx
     In case any employee or his nominee obtains the final
     refund of CPF between 1st April 1989 and specified                F
     period for exercising option, the employer's share with
    .accrued interest time to time shall have to be deposited
     in lump sum before granting the option for pension."

     4. As the amount of employer's share of CPF with interest
in lumpsum was not deposited by the employees within the               G
stipulated time, their claim for grant of pensionary benefit was
rejected by the appellant-Corporation. The decision of the
Corporation was challenged in the High Court by filing writ
petitions which were disposed of with direction to the
                                                                       H
    468       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013) 3 S.C.R.


A Corporation to accept the option submitted by the employees
  with regard to grant of pension and to allow the same to the
  employees by deducting the amount of excess provident fund
  with interest which is said to be granted earlier. Aggrieved by
  the orders passed in writ petitions, the appellants herein filed
B D.B. Civil Special Appeals (W) before the Division Bench of
  the High Court which were dismissed by the orders impugned
  in these appeals.

       5. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the
C parties and perusing the Regulations, particularly Clause 3(1)
  as quoted hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that
  the view taken by the learned Single Judge and also the
  Division Bench is not in consonance with the conditions
  presecribed in the said Regulations.

D         6. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition
    filed by Madugiri and Yakub Khan, with the following directions:

          "Accordingly this petition for writ is disposed of with a
          direction to the respondent Rajasthan State Road
          Transport Corporation to accept the option submitted by
E
          the petitioners with regard to grant of pension and then
          the same be allowed to them by deducting the amount of
          excess provident fund with interest which is said to be
          granted earlier. The respondent Corporation shall
          complete all formalities with regard to grant of pension and
F         deduction of excess provident fund amount said to be paid
          to the petitioners within a period of four months from the
          date the petitioners submit a certified copy of this order
          to the respondent No.3 along with a representation for
          acceptance of pension in terms of this order."
G
         Similar directions were issued by the learned Single Judge
    in another writ petition filed by Mohini Devi.
        7. The Division Bench has considered the Regulations but
H failed to notice that there is apparent error in the order passed
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. 469
   MADU GIRi (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]

by the learned Single Judge. Indisputably, the concerned            A
employees retired from service in 1991 and 1992 and after
retirement they were paid CPF including the share of
employer's contribution. Hence, as per Clause 3 of the
Regulatior:is, no right accrued to the appellants/employees to
claim pensionary benefits without first depositing the amount       B
and complying with the Regulations.

    8. The matter was examined by this Court in Pepsu Road
Transport Corporation, Patia/a vs. Mangat Singh and Others
(2011) 11 sec 702 wherein it was held as under:
                                                                    c
           "51. The common thread which runs through all these
    appeals canvassed before us is that the respondents have
    failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the
    Regulations, which govern the Pension Scheme. We have
    already considered the nature and effect of the regulations,    D
    which are made under a statute. These statutory
    regulations require to be interpreted in the same manner
    which is adopted while interpreting any other statutory
    provisions. The Corporation as well as the respondents
    are obliged and bound to comply with its mandatory              E
    conditions and requirements. Any action or conduct
    deviating from these conditions shall render such action
    illegal and invalid. Moreover, the respondents have availed
    the retiral benefits arising out of CPF and gratuity without
    any protest.                                                    F

          52. The respondents in all these appeals, before us,
    have made a claim for pensionary benefits under the
    Pension Scheme for the first time only after their retirement
    with an unreasonable delay of more than 8 years. It is not
    in dispute, in some appeals, that the respondents never         G
    opted for the Pension Scheme for their alleged want of
    knowledge for non-service of individual notices. In other
    appeals, although the respondents applied for the option
    of the Pension Scheme but indisputably never fulfilled the
                                                                    H
    470      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 3 S.C.R.

A         quintessential conditions envisaged by the Regulations
          which are statutory in nature."
          9. We are, therefore, of the opinion that, in the facts and
  circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by
B this Court in the judgment referred to hereinabove, impugned
  orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division
  Bench of the High Court cannot be sustained in law.
       10. For the reasons aforesaid, these appeals are allowed
  and the impugned orders are set aside. However, there shall
C be no order as to costs.

    B.B.B.                                        Appeals allowed.