Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(Raj) 1101

[Citation : 2012(2) RLW 1292 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Hari Kishore Sharma Vs. State & Ors. (Rastogi, J.)
HON'BLE AJAY RASTOGI, J.
Hari Kishore Sharma
Versus
State & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5940 of 2003 and 82 Others, decided on 21.10.2011

Advocates Appeared
R.N. Mathur, Sr. Adv., & Ashok Gaur Sr. Adv., with Kapil Bardhar, Shashank Agrawal, H.O.P. Mathur, V.K. Mathur, Rajendra Arora, Ashok Yadav, Prahlad Sharma & Nitin Jain, for Petitioners;
S.M. Mehta, Sr. Advocate, G.C. Garg, & Ms. Sonal Singh & L.L. Gupta, for respondents-RRVPNL; Virendra Lodha, Sr. Adv. With Ankit Jain, Jag Mohan Saxena, & Shantanu Sharma, for Respondents;
Pradeep Kalwani, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for State

Headnote:Pension and GPF Scheme, 1988 — Members of RSEB — Could not exercise option for pension scheme for want of notice being posted at remote areas — Filed representation — Secretary, RSEB rejected — Held — For want of monitoring notices could not reach and be served upon individual employee which confer right upon them — The secretary had no authority to deny to provide any more option and reject the representation as the Board being competent authority could take final decision — Pension is neither bounty or matter of grace depending upon sweet will of the employer nor is ex-gratia payment but a reward for devoted services rendered with an object of socio economic justice — Quashed and set aside — Allowed all the eligible existing employees though not approached this Court to exercise option for pension scheme. (Paras 40, 49, 53, 63, 66 to 68)
       Writ petitions allowed.
       isa'ku ,oa th-ih-,Q- Ldhe] 1988 & vkj-,l-bZ-ch- ds lnL; & nwj njkt {ks= esa uksfVl ds vHkko esa isa'ku Ldhe gsrq fodYi dk iz;ksx ugha dj lds & vH;kosnu nk;j fd;k & lfpo] vkj-,l-bZ-ch- us fujLr fd;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & eksfuVfjax ds vHkko esa uksfVl ugha igqap lds rFkk O;fDrxr :i ls deZpkfj;ksa ij mudh rkehy ugha djkbZ tk ldh tks fd mu ij vf/kdkj iznku djrk gS & dksbZ vksj fodYi nsus ls badkj djus rFkk vH;kosnu [kkfjt djus dk lfpo dks dksbZ izkf/kdkj ugha Fkk D;ksafd cksMZ l{ke izkf/kdkjh gksus ds dkj.k vfUre fu.kZ; ys ldrk Fkk & isa'ku u rks dksbZ vuqxzg gS vkSj u gh fu;ksDrk dh bPNk ij fuHkZj dksbZ ikfjrksf"kd gS rFkk u gh dksbZ vuqxzg iwoZd Hkqxrku gS cfYd lkekftd vkfFkZd U;k; ds mn~ns'; ls dh xbZ fu"Bk iwoZd lsok ds cnys ,oa iqjLdkj gS & vfHk[kf.Mr ,oa vikLr fd;k & lHkh vgZad fo|eku deZpkfj;ksa dks isa'ku ;kstuk ds fodYi dk iz;ksx dh vuqefr iznku dh Hkys gh os bl U;k;ky; esa ugha vk;s gksaA
       ;kfpdk Lohdkj dhA ¼in la[;k 40] 49] 53] 63] 66 ls 68½

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The petitioner employees seek to exercise options to switch from CPF to Pension/GPF Scheme, challenged on grounds of improper notices/publicity. (!) (!) - The Court emphasizes that pension is a right and not a bounty; failure to monitor and serve notices to remote employees violated due process and Article 14. (!) (!) - Notices dated 1989–1997 were issued, but there is contested evidence that they were not widely circulated or pasted in offices, especially in remote areas. (!) (!) (!) - Minutes/decisions of Whole Time Members (01/04/1995) and the Board’s ratification process were not properly placed before the Board; final decisions should emanate from the Board, not solely from Secretary/Chairman. (!) (!) - The Court ultimately quashes the rejection of representations and directs that eligible existing employees may exercise options under Pension/GPF Regulations, 1988, within a reasonable time. (!) (!) - The judgment references that pension/GPF benefits are socio-economic justice and not burdens on the state; various observations on need for wide publicity and equitable treatment. (!) (!) (!) - Comparative cases and principles cited: need for open opportunity and non-discrimination; failure to provide options grounds for quashing and re-opening opportunity. (!) (!) (!)

What is the scope of the right to opt for Pension & GPF Scheme, 1988 for existing RSEB employees and whether failure to circulate notices properly vitiates that right?

What are the standards for wide publicity and monitoring of notices inviting options, and does failure to reach individual employees violate Articles 14/16 of the Constitution?

What is the authority and process required for final decisions on extending or restricting options to old RSEB employees, and can an administrative order (e.g., 12.3.1999) override or supplant Board decisions?

Hon'ble RASTOGI, J.—These petitions have been filed by employees of erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board ("RSEB") and presently members of Five companies came into existence after unbundling of RSEB in the year 2000.

2. RSEB was constituted on 28.6.1957. However, RSEB was dissolved in exercise of powers vested under Rajasthan Power Sector Reforms Act, 1999 through Rajasthan Power Sector Reforms Transfer Scheme, 2000 and on its unbundling, it was converted into Five Companies ad infra:

(A) Rajasthan Rajaya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur ("RRVUNL")

(B) Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur ("RRVPNL")

(D) Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Hati Bhata, Ajmer. ("AVVNL")

(E) Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, New Power House, Indl. Area, Jodhpur

All afore Five Electricity Companies are owned & controlled by Government of Rajasthan and its employees are absorbed in respective electricity Company on the same terms & conditions as governed while being employees of erstwhile RSEB.

3. All the writ petitioners are primarily aggrieved by the act of respon-dents in not permitting them to exercise their options for pension & GPF under the Scheme of Regulations, 1988 in place of CPF Scheme of which they have been members on their entry into service of RSEB, since Contributory Provident Fund Scheme ("CPF Scheme") was made effective on its employees being appointed on or after 01.7.1957 and after constitution of RSEB, since there was only CPF scheme obviously they became member of CPF Scheme.

4. Instant petitioners were appointed on various posts in the erstwhile RSEB which was a statutory body created by the Act of the State for performing the work of generation, transmission & distribution of electricity in the State of Rajasthan. Recruitment & service conditions of its employees were governed by Rules & Regulations framed by RSEB.

5. It is also a matter of record that majority of petitioners are holding lowest posts in respective services of different companies created after unbundling of RSEB; and from the list made available to the Court, it appears that they are either working as LDC, Helper, Peon, Junior Engineer, Jr.Accountant, Stenographer or on technical posts-Electrician Welder, Lineman, Fitter, Meter Readers etc.; and at the same time, few of writ petitioners are holding posts of Class-II & I, as well. But, most of them are in ministerial/technical cadre holding lowest posts in the ladder.

6. In exercise of powers conferred U/s 79 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the RSEB constituted by Rajasthan Government vide Notification dt.28.6.1957 framed the following Regulations for the matters provided in S.79(c) of the Act for its employees & officers :

(1) RSEB Employees Pension Regulations, 1988 (Pension Scheme, 1988") and

(2) RSEB Employees General Provident Fund Regulations, 1988 ("GPF Scheme, 1988");

making it effective from 28.11.1988. Pursuant to which, options were invited by the RSEB from its officers & employees to submit their written con-sent for pensionary & gratuity benefits on the same lines/Rules as are being allowed to the erstwhile employees of the Electrical & Mechanical (E&M) Department opted Board's service, within Ninety days from the date of notice issued pursuant to the Pension & GPF Scheme, 1988 having come into force.

7. After introduction of RSEB Pension & GPF Scheme, 1988, first notice came to be issued on 06.1.1989 for grant of options to the RSEB employees who are availing retiring benefits admissible under the RSEB CPF Rules/ Jodhpur CPF Rules to come over to the pensionary & GPF benefits under RSEB Pension & GPF Regulations, 1988. Thereafter, time & again such like notices came to be issued inviting options from the employees and lastly it was issued on 04.2.1997 to exercise their options on or before 30.6.1997.

8. But instant writ petitioners are those unfortunate who for one reason or the other detail

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(Raj) 1101

[Citation : 2012(2) RLW 1292 (Raj.)](Rajasthan High Court)Jaipur BenchHari Kishore Sharma Vs. State & Ors. (Rastogi, J.)HON'BLE AJAY RASTOGI, J.Hari Kishore SharmaVersusState & Ors.S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5940 of 2003 and 82 Others, decided on 21.10.2011

What is the scope of the right to opt for Pension & GPF Scheme, 1988 for existing RSEB employees and whether failure to circulate notices properly vitiates that right?

What are the standards for wide publicity and monitoring of notices inviting options, and does failure to reach individual employees violate Articles 14/16 of the Constitution?

What is the authority and process required for final decisions on extending or restricting options to old RSEB employees, and can an administrative order (e.g., 12.3.1999) override or supplant Board decisions?

Cases Referred (5)

[Citation : 2012(2) RLW 1292 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Hari Kishore Sharma Vs. State & Ors. (Rastogi, J.)
HON'BLE AJAY RASTOGI, J.
Hari Kishore Sharma
Versus
State & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5940 of 2003 and 82 Others, decided on 21.10.2011