LexRAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & OTHERS versus MADU GIRI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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. 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 B 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 8 Special Appeal (W) No. 212 of 2006. 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 Reg
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.