Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 241
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, JJ.
The Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Ranjeet Singh Choudhary - Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 627 of 2018 in S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 403 of 2017 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8222 of 2014
Decided On : 01-05-2019
For the Petitioner:J.K. Singhi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Tarun Kumar.
For the Respondents: Kunal Kant Rawat.
An employee who fails to submit an option form for pension within the stipulated time is not entitled to pension under the RSRTC Employees Pension Regulations, 1989.
Headnote:
PENSION - RSRTC EMPLOYEES PENSION REGULATIONS, 1989 - REGULATION 3(L) - OPTION FOR PENSION - SUSPENDED EMPLOYEE - REINSTATEMENT - ARREARS OF SALARY, CPF, AND GRATUITY.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a suspended employee of RSRTC, claimed pension under the RSRTC Employees Pension Regulations, 1989. He alleged that he had submitted an option form for pension but the RSRTC refused to accept it and advised him to submit the form within 30 days of his reinstatement. The respondent's services were terminated, and his approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was dismissed. The respondent filed a writ petition seeking reinstatement and pensionary benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had not submitted the option form within the stipulated time and was therefore not entitled to pension under Regulation 3(L) of the RSRTC Employees Pension Regulations, 1989. However, the court directed the RSRTC to treat the respondent as reinstated in service and to pay him arrears of salary, CPF, and gratuity with interest.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent was entitled to pension under the RSRTC Employees Pension Regulations, 1989. 2. Whether the RSRTC was liable to pay the respondent arrears of salary, CPF, and gratuity.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Regulation 3(L) of the RSRTC Employees Pension Regulations, 1989 required employees to submit an option form for pension within a specified period. The respondent failed to submit the option form within the stipulated time and was therefore not entitled to pension. 2. The respondent was deemed to be reinstated in service from the date of his suspension till the date of his superannuation, and was entitled to arrears of salary, CPF, and gratuity with interest.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and directed the RSRTC to treat the respondent as reinstated in service and to pay him arrears of salary, CPF, and gratuity with interest.
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation challenging the order dated 9.4.2018, by which the review petition filed by the appellant-RSRTC seeking review of the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 27.10.2017 was dismissed. Also under challenge is the main judgment dated 27.10.2017.
2. The respondent-writ petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition inter alia on the premise that he was working with the appellant-RSRTC on the post of Conductor in the regular pay scale. He was suspended in the year 1995. When the respondent-writ petitioner was under suspension, the appellant-RSRTC introduced a scheme for pension under Corporation Employees Pension GPF and invited option from the existing employees for selecting either CPF Scheme or GPF Scheme. Such option was to be exercised from 15.6.1996 to 15.8.1996. According to the respondent-writ petitioner, he applied in favour of receiving the pension on the prescribed proforma 1(A) and submitted the same to the concerned authority. The appellant-RSRTC instead of accepting the option of the respondent, refused the same and advised that since he was under suspension, therefore, he should submit his option form within 30 days from the date of his reinstatement. Eventually, the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent were concluded and the disciplinary authority vide order dated 29.4.1997 terminated his services. The appellant-respondent filed application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for seeking approval of his termination. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties dismissed the application vide order dated 21.8.2004. Dissatisfied therewith, the appellant-RSRTC filed writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed by judgment dated 16.1.2008. The appellant-RSRTC then filed D.B. Special Appeal before the division bench, which too was dismissed by judgment dated 21.3.2013. Still not satisfied, the RSRTC filed SLP before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vide order dated 18.11.2013 dismissed the SLP. Copies of all the three orders have been placed on record. The RSRTC did not at any point of time after their approval application under Section 33(2)(b) was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur on 21.8.2004 and upto the time their SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18.11.2013, passed the order of his reinstatement. The date of birth of the respondent being December, 1950, he attained the age of 60 years i.e. the age of superannuation on 31.12.2010 and thus was taken to have retired from service on 31.12.2010. The RSRTC passed the order on 9.1.2014 in purported compliance of the judgment of the Industrial Tribunal dated 21.8.2004, vide which a sum of Rs. 4,23,202/- was paid to the respondent-writ petitioner. He filed application before the competent authority of the RSRTC on 29.1.2014 requesting them to grant further and other pensionary benefits to him. The RSRTC informed the writ petitioner by letter dated 30.4.2014 that he was not entitled to pension. Copy of the letter dated 11.4.2014 issued by the Accounts Officer (Pension) was also forwarded to him, in which it was opined that the petitioner was not entitled to pension as he did not submit the requisite option form within the stipulated time. It is in this context that the respondent approached this Court by filing the writ petition inter alia on the premise that since the RSRTC by letter dated 6.7.1996 conveyed to him that he could exercise his option within 30 days of his reinstatement and since he has not been formally reinstated, the RSRTC be directed to treat the writ petitioner as reinstated from the date of his suspension and grant him all the pensionary and other admissible benefits. Prayer was also made to quash and set aside the order dated 9.1.2014.
3. The writ petition was contested by the RSRTC contending that the charge sheet was served on the respondent-writ petition on 20.5.1995
