Entitlement to Pension Benefits: Legal Analysis

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.


  • 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


  • 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


  • 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


  • 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 Number: C.A. No.-001789-001789 / 2020

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *