PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATIALA THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR & ANR. versus S. K. SHARMA & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 4 S.C.R. 24 · Decided: 08-08-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVA KIRTI SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 4 S.C.R. 24 
A 
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATIALA 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR & ANR. 
v. 
S. K. SHARMA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4703 of2009) 
AUGUSTOS,2016 
[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.) 
. Service Law : .Retiral benefits - Claim for pension instead of 
Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) - Validity - Respondents, 
government employees transferred to Corporation - In terms of the 
then prevailing regulation, Corporation provided only for CPF and 
not pension - Respondents on retirement obtained such retiral 
benefits, without any pmtest - However, when Corporation 
introduced pension in 1992 respondents claimed entitlement to 
pension - Held: The respondents participated and contributed to 
the scheme of CPF and obtained the benefits of retirement from the 
Corporation, without any protest -1.f the employees chose to accept 
the transition of their service from one concern to another and 
acquiesced then they cannot be permitted to turn back and challenge 
the entire developments after a gap of decades especially after their 
retirement - Respondents had accepted to continue as employees of 
Corporation pursuant to order of merger/tran.~fer, therefore, on 
completing their service under the Corporation and reaching the 
age of retirement they were entitled to receive only the benefits of 
CPF and gratuity - Since they accepted those retiral benefits, there 
111as no relationship left between the Corporation and the 
respondents and in such a situation further claim was totally 
untenable. 
D.R. Gurushantappa v. Abdul Khuddus Anwar and Ors. 
1969 (3) SCR 425 : 1969 (1) SCC 466 - followed. 
Mysore State Road 7hmsport Corporation v. A. Krishna 
Rao and Anr. 1973(1) SLR 1080; PEPSU Road 
Tramport Corporation, Patiala v. Mangat Singh and 
Ors. 2011 (6) SCR 564 : 2011 (11) SCC 702 - referred 
to. 
24 
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORP., PATIALA 
25 
THR. ITS M. D. v. S. K. SHARMA 
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kirpal Singh 2014 (1) 
A 
SCR 380 : 2014 (5) SCC 189 - distinguished. 
Vice Chancellor, Utkal University & Ors. v. S.K. Ghosh & 
Ors.1954 AIR 217 : 1954 SCR 883; S.R. Bhanrale v. U1iion 
of India and Ors. 1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 763 : 1996 (10) SCC 
172; Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. v. Union of India 
B 
& Ors.1996 (2) SCR816 : 1996 (3) SCC 325; S.K. .Rattan v. 
· Union qf India & Ors. 2013 (12) SCR 743 : 2014 (4) SCC · 
144; State of Haryana & Ors. v. Amar Nath Bansal 1997 
(1) SCR 262 : 1997 (10) SCC 700 - distinguished. 
State of Punjab v. Nirmal Singh 2007 (8) SCC 108 - held 
C 
inapplicable. 
Case Law Reference 
2~11 (6) SCR 564 
referred to 
para8 
1954 SCR 883 
distinguished 
para9 
2007 (8) SCC108 
held inapplicable 
para 10 
1996 (3) Suppl. SCR763 
distinguished 
.rara 11 
1996 (2) SCR 816 
distinguished 
para 12 
~973(1) SLR 1080 
referred to 
para 12 
2014 (1) SCR 380 
·distinguished 
para 13 
2013 (12) SCR 743 
distinguished 
para 13 
1997 (l)SCR 262 
distinguished 
para 13 
1969 (3) SCR 425 
followed 
para 16 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4 703 
of2009. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24~04.2006 of the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in L.P.A. No. 700 of 2002 in 
C.W.P. No. 11908of1992. 
Rakesh Dwivedi. Sr. Adv., K. K. Mohan, Ms. Apoorva Garg, Advs. 
for the Appellants. 
S. K. Sharma, Abhishek Puri, Mrs. Reeta Dewan Puri, P; N. Puri, 
D 
E 
F 
G 
M. K. Dua, Advs. for the Respondents. 
H 
26 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
.[2016] 4 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. I. This appeal by special leave assails 
the judgment and order dated 24.04.2006 passed by a Division Bench of 
High Cou1t of Punjab and Haryana dismissing LPA No. 700 of 2002 
preferred by the appellants and affirming the judgment oflearned Single 
Judge dated 11.01.2002 whereby Writ Petition bearing CWPNo. 11908 
of 1992 preferred by some of the respondents was allowed. Some had 
preferred to file suits and Civil Appeals which were dismissed. Their 
Regular Second Appeal No. 430 of 1995 was tagged with the above 
writ petition and was allowed by the same common judgment enabling 
all the 21 respondents to refund a pa1t ofCPF (Govt. Contribution) or 
agree for adjustment, to obtain pensionary benefits. 
2. The respondents filed the writ petition in 1992 claiming that 
they were appointed originally in a department of PEPSU described as 
PEPSU Roadways, between January 1955 and September 1956. It is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.