Explore the intricate legal analysis surrounding entitlement to pension benefits in a recent court judgment. This summary delves into the key aspects of regulations, circulars, and the obligations of employers post-absorption. Understanding the nuances between Pension and CPF schemes is essential in navigating the complexities of employee rights. Stay tuned to unravel the insights provided by the court’s thorough legal examination.
Facts
- Respondent gave an option on 22.03.1997 for Pension under Rajasthan State Road Transport Pension Regulations, 1989.
- Respondent was absorbed from Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Limited where Pension Scheme was not applicable, and he was governed by Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme.
- Respondent already receiving pension from Employees Provident Fund Organization, as Pension was not applicable in Agro Industries Corporation.
- Benefit of Loan of more than Rs.18 Lakhs was availed by the respondent from the Corporation due to being a member of CPF Scheme.
- Respondent sent several reminders for pension approval, and a circular issued in 1999 mentioned eligibility for Corporation Pension upon receiving capital amount from Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Limited.
- Respondent exercised State responsibility for receiving Pension based on an option exercised on 22.03.1997, and also received benefits including gratuity and other amounts upon retirement.
- Writ petition filed by respondent No.1 for benefits of GPF and Pension Scheme of 1989 was considered by learned Single Judge.
- Learned Single Judge referred to the case of Mahaveer Prasad Jain versus Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
- Respondent was allowed to receive pension subject to returning the amount under the CPF Scheme.
- Respondent attained superannuation on 30.06.2012.
- Subsequent writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8100 of 2017) was filed and allowed by learned Single Judge in line with the previous judgement.
- Appellant’s Special Appeal Writ No. 1314 of 2018 was dismissed, leading to Civil Appeal No. 1812 of 2020.
- The ongoing legal proceedings revolve around the entitlement of the respondent to GPF and Pension benefits.
Also Read: Transfer of Writ Petitions for Chartered Accountants’ Tax Audit Guidelines
Arguments
- Respondent’s entire contribution under CPF Scheme was transferred by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
- Certificate of account transfer issued by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was submitted as evidence.
- No further transfer was due to be made as entire amount was already transferred to the corporation.
- Respondent exercised option for Pension benefit before 31.03.1997.
- Judgment in Mahaveer Prasad Jain’s Case by Rajasthan High Court covered respondent’s case.
- Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 05.07.2017 was affirmed by Division Bench on 19.12.2007.
- Condition imposed by Single Judge for pension entitlement was refund of amount received under CPF Scheme.
- The petitioner is entitled to receive pension, but must return or refund the amount received under the CPF Scheme.
- Neither the petitioner nor the respondents are entitled to any interest on the refunded amount.
- The respondents must conduct the exercise of refunding the CPF amount within fifteen days.
Also Read: Analyzing Interference with Acquittal in Legal Conviction Case
Analysis
- Notification dated 12.02.1997 required option from absorbed employees for Pension or CPF Scheme.
- Clause 2(vi) of the notification specified the transfer of Provident Fund contributions to Corporation for Pension Scheme.
- Employees absorbed by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation were governed by CPF and Pension Schemes.
- Circular dated 02.07.1991 outlined guidelines for absorbing surplus employees from State Public Enterprises.
- Regulation 43 of Regulations, 1989 mandated the transfer of Pension Fund contributions to the Corporation.
- Court emphasized the difference between Pension and CPF Schemes in terms of periodic payments and one-time payments respectively.
- Respondent’s claim for pension was found valid as per the guidelines and regulations applicable.
- The obligation to credit employee and employer contributions to the Pension Fund and GPF Fund lay with the Corporation post-absorption.
- The appellant was directed to sanction pension to the respondent based on relevant regulations and circulars.
- Non-transfer of any capital amount by the erstwhile employer did not affect the respondent’s entitlement to pension.
- The Division Bench judgment in Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Special Appeal(writ) No.1326 of 2007 dealt with the retirement benefit of a surplus employee from Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Limited absorbed in Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam.
- The employee was not covered by a Pension Scheme in his earlier employment, and his case was governed by clause 11 of a Circular dated 02.07.1991.
- The Rajasthan High Court observed that the Rajasthan State Electricity Board had both the Central Provident Fund Scheme and Pension Scheme for its employees.
- The case of pension for the employee was allowed by the learned Single Judge, leading to a Special Appeal being filed against the judgment.
- The direction of the learned Single Judge protected the interest of the appellant.
- The learned Single Judge’s decision was in favor of the appellant.
- The appellant benefited from the direction given by the Single Judge.
Also Read: Judicial Review on Sentence and Compensation in Criminal Case
Decision
- The writ petition is allowed and the respondents are allowed to retain the pension received under the CPF Scheme.
- An interim order from 13.08.2018 prevented the High Court judgment from being implemented by the appellant.
- Equities between the parties are balanced by directing the Corporation to pay pension to the respondents only after the deposit is made by them.
- The amount received as pension under the CPF does not need to be returned by the respondents and will not be deducted from the pension paid by the appellant.
- Both appeals are dismissed with the modifications mentioned.
- The respondent is given a two-month period from the order to refund the entire amount under the C.P.F. Scheme, including excess gratuity.
- Upon deposit, the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation will sanction the pension to the respondent without any interest.
Case Title: THE RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. GOVERDHAN LAL SONI (2020 INSC 539)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001789-001789 / 2020
