LexRAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. versus DWARKA PRASAD KOOLWAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 492 A RAJASTHAN RAJYAVIDYUTVITRAN NIGAM LTD. B v. DWARKA PRASAD KOOLWAL & ORS. (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. · Mangat Singh and Others (2011) 11 SCC 702 - relied on. Case Law Reference: (2009) 14 sec 793 distinguished (2011) 11 sec 702 relied on Para 50 Para 50 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal E F 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 A SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R. 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 0 Saxena, NishitAgrawal,AkshatAnand, Ms.Anjali Chauhan, 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 2.81h November, H 1988?
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.