2020 Supreme(SC) 533

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS – APPELLANT(S)
Versus
GOVERDHAN LAL SONI AND ANR. – RESPONDENT(S)
Civil Appeal No.1789 of 2020 and Civil Appeal No.1812 of 2020
Decided on : 09-09-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Payment of pension is dependent on various considerations and conditions. When an employee who is governed by CPF Scheme in his erstwhile employment opts for CPF Scheme in absorbing Enterprise, balance amount in CPF account is transferred and employees continue in CPF Scheme.
(2) CPF and Pension Schemes are beneficial Schemes for employees which are of different nature.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Retiral Dues – Non-payment of benefit of GPF and Pension – Corporation has both CPF and Pension Scheme – Both CPF and Pension Schemes are beneficial Schemes for employees which are of different nature – In a Contributory Provident Fund Scheme Employer makes matching contributions to Employees contribution and both are kept in separate account and on retirement of employees both are released to employee along with interest – Pension is a periodic payment to employee after retirement from service by Employer – Payment of Pension is made under scheme floated by Employer – Pension Scheme contemplates a fund out of which pension is payable to an employee – Payment of pension is dependent on various considerations and conditions – When an employee who is governed by CPF Scheme in his erstwhile employment opts for CPF Scheme in absorbing Enterprise, balance amount in CPF account is transferred and employees continue in CPF Scheme – There can be two categories of surplus employees, one category may have in its erstwhile Employment Pension Scheme and another category may have only CPF Scheme – In a case where in erstwhile employment employee is governed by Pension Scheme and he opts for Pension Scheme in absorbing Enterprise, there is no difficulty in implementing of Pension Scheme since balance in CPF account as well as Pension Fund shall be transferred in corresponding accounts in absorbing Enterprise. [Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ Pension Regulations 1989 – Regulations 3 and 43] (Paras 21, 32 and 35)

(B) Service Law – Retiral Dues – Non-payment of benefit of GPF and Pension – Both employee’s contribution and employer’s contribution which were deposited with Provident Fund Commissioner Office was transferred to Corporation – What was contemplated by Clause 2(vi) of notification dated 12.02.1997 was complied with – There was no justifiable ground for appellant for not sanctioning claim of pension of respondent after his retirement – It was open for Corporation-appellant while sanctioning pension to respondent to deduct amount of pension received by him under CPF Scheme and pension could have been accordingly fixed by reducing pension amount already received by respondent which respondent was getting under CPF Scheme but that could not have been a reason for denying pension to respondent – Respondent has not withdrawn any amount and both employees and employer contributions were transferred to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – Respondent had made out a case for grant of pension by appellant – Both Single Judge and Division Bench did not commit any error in allowing claim of respondent for pension – To balance equities between parties ends of justice be served in directing Corporation to pay pension to respondents only with effect from date on which deposit is made by respondents – Pension received by respondents under CPF Scheme shall be allowed to be retained by respondents. [Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ Pension Regulations 1989 – Regulations 3 and 43] (Paras 39, 40, 41, 45, 46 and 50)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals have been filed by Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation and others challenging judgments dated 05.03.2018 and 30.08.2018 respectively of the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court dismissing the D.B. Special Appeals filed by the appellants. Both the appeals having raised similar issues it shall be sufficient to refer the facts and pleadings in Civil Appeal No.1789 of 2020 for deciding both the appeals.

Findings of the Court:

No delay was caused by the respondent in approaching High Court for relief of Pension. Before filing the writ petition the respondent has also sent representation in the year 2010 raising his claim for Pension which ought to have alerted appellant to take appropriate steps.

Result : Appeals dismissed.