RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS versus GOVERDHAN LAL SONI AND ANR.

Citation: [2020] 10 S.C.R. 238 · Decided: 09-09-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
238
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 10 S.C.R.
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION AND OTHERS
v.
GOVERDHAN LAL SONI AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 1789 of  2020)
SEPTEMBER 09, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Pension – Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
Employees Pension Regulations, 1989 – The State Government
closed the Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Limited and
declared all its employees as surplus – The surplus employees were
absorbed in different Corporations – The State issued a circular on
02.07.1991 containing guidelines for absorption of surplus
employees – The respondent no. 1 was absorbed in appellant-
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation – The respondent was
given an option to opt for either CPF scheme or the GPF and pension
scheme – The respondent opted for the pension scheme under
Regulations, 1989 – Pursuant to the option opted by the respondent
no. 1, the appellant-Corporation directed for transfer of amount –
The contribution of employees as well as contribution of employer
deposited with the Provident Fund Commissioner was transferred
to the appellant-Corporation – However, the Rajasthan Agro
Industries Corporation Limited informed that pension scheme being
not applicable in Agro Industries Corporation, capital value, amount
in regard to absorbed employee is not due to the appellant-
Corporation – Respondent filed writ petition – The High Court held
that respondent-writ petitioner was entitled to get pension – In
another civil appeal, the other respondent after absorption also
gave an option for opting for GPF and pension scheme – Not being
given the benefit of GPF and pension, writ petition was filed by him
– The writ petition was allowed – Both the appeals having raised
similar issues are before the Supreme Court – Held: The regulation
43 of the Regulations, 1989 makes it clear that except those
employees who have opted for continuing to CPF, employer’s share
shall be transferred to the appellant-Corporation Pension Fund
and the employees share with interest shall be transferred to
[2020] 10 S.C.R. 238
238
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
239
appellant-Corporation GPF Fund – For the employees who were
entitled to grant of pension there is mention of only two funds that
is pension fund and GPF fund – The employer’s share was to be
transferred to Pension Fund and employee’s share shall be
transferred to GPF Fund – Further, clause 11(b) of circular dated
02.07.1991 makes it clear that when the respondent was absorbed
in appellant-Corporation the balance in CPF Account of the surplus
employees would be transferred in GPF Account and the Pension
Fund respectively – Since, the Certificate issued by the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner makes it clear that the contribution
of employee and employer was transferred to the appellant-
Corporation – Thus, it was the obligation of the appellant-
Corporation to credit the amount in Pension fund and GPF fund –
Neither Regulations, 1989 nor circular dated 02.07.1991 refers to
any capital amount – There was no obligation of erstwhile employer
of the respondent to transfer any capital amount – Neither any such
capital amount was contemplated by 1989 Regulations or by scheme
of absorption dated 02.07.1991 – There was no justifiable ground
for the appellant for not sanctioning the claim of Pension of the
respondent after his retirement – Therefore, the High Court did not
commit any error in allowing the claim of the respondent for pension.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The contention which has been pressed by the
counsel for the appellant before this Court is that there was no
transfer of capital amount of the erstwhile employer of respondent.
The counsel for the appellant has relied and refer to the letter
dated 18.09.1998 issued by the Rajasthan State Agro Industries
Corporation Limited. This has been brought on record as
Annexure-P/1. A perusal of Annexure-P/1 indicates that appellant-
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation by letter dated
29.07.1998 requested the Rajasthan State Agro Industries
Corporation Limited for transferring capital value amount in
regard to the respondent. The erstwhile employer of the
respondent informed the appellant that capital value amount in
regard to the absorbed employees is not due to the appellant-
Corporation. The appellant was informed that contribution of
Provident Fund amount is deposited in the account of
Commissioner, Provident Fund, Government of India which can
RAJAST

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.