PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATIALA versus AMANDEEP SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 37 · Decided: 03-01-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2017] I S.C.R. 37 
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATIALA 
A 
v. 
AMANDEEP SINGH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3842of2011) 
JANUARY 03, 2017 
[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 
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 
- 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 
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 
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 
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 
37. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
38 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] I S.C.R. 
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 
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 
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] 
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, 
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] 
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. 
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 
[2011] 6 SCR 564 
distinguished 
relied on 
Para 16 
Para 20 
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATIALA v. 
39 
AMANDEEP SINGH & ORS. 
c2015) n sec 51 
relied on 
Para 22 
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.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.