Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3842 OF 2011

PEPSU  ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATIALA … APPELLANT

VERSUS

AMANDEEP SINGH & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

This appeal has been filed by PEPSU Road Transport

Corporation, Patiala against the judgment and order of

Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 1st  December, 2006 by

which judgment the Regular Second Appeal filed by the

appellant has been dismissed affirming the judgments and

orders of the Appellate Court and Trial Court. This appeal

has arisen out of the original suit filed by the Balwant

Singh the predecessor in interest of the respondents.

Page 2

2

2. The brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for

deciding the appeal are :

Balwant Singh, the plaintiff had been working as driver

with PEPSU Road Transport Corporation. The statutory

Regulation has been framed, namely, PEPSU Road Transport

Corporation Employees/Pension Gratuity and General

Provident Fund Regulations 1992 (hereinafter referred to as

“Regulations 1992”), which came into force w.e.f. 15th

January, 1992. The Regulations were made applicable to the

employees of the Corporation who were appointed on or after

the date of issue of Regulations on whole­time and regular

basis and those  who  were working immediately before  the

date of issue of Regulations and opt for these Regulations.

The exercise of option for pension scheme was to be made

within six months from the date of issue of Regulations.

Those employees who opted for Regulations and had obtained

advance from the Corporation out of the Contributory

Provident Fund were required to refund the same within a

period of six months. The plaintiff did not submit an

option under the Regulations 1992 and attained the age of

superannuation on 30th  November, 2000. After retirement

Page 3

3

plaintiff was released the entire amount of Contributory

Provident Fund(CPF) which was received by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.1044 of 2003 for declaration

to the effect that plaintiff is entitled for pension and

commuted pensions and other benefits attached with the same

alongwith interest @ 18% on the delayed payment. The

plaintiff’s case was that after retirement the defendant

only released the contributed fund and has not released the

full pension. The defendants filed written statement

stating that plaintiff had never  opted for pension as per

Regulations 1992. Plaintiff had received all his dues and

no dues against defendants is pending. Plaintiff had

obtained loan of Rs.12,000/­ from CPF out of which Rs.

4999/­ is yet to be recovered. The Trial Court vide its

judgment and order dated 26th March, 2005 decreed the suit

declaring that plaintiff is entitled to pension, commuted

pension and other benefits and defendants would issue

demand notice to the plaintiff within one month as to how

much amount of CPF should be paid by him(plaintiff) so as

to avail the benefit of pension scheme. The Trial Court

held that although the plaintiff was to give option as per

Page 4

4

Regulation 1992 and he had to deposit the amount of CPF but

Pension cannot be declined on the technical ground that he

had not refunded the loan amount.  

3. The Corporation aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial

Court filed an appeal being C.A.D. No.21 of 2005 which was

dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda

vide judgment dated 29th August, 2005.

4. The Appellate Court took the view that it was

obligatory on the part of the defendants to have led cogent

reasons that the scheme under the Regulations 1992 was

circulated between the employees of the Corporation   and

they were made to note the same so as to opt within

specified period. It was further held that plaintiff had

never opted out of the Regulations.  With the above finding

the appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Court,

Regular Second Appeal was filed by the Corporation in the

Punjab and Haryana High Court.   The High Court also

dismissed the appeal by observing that there is no evidence

that pension scheme was circulated within the employees and

Page 5

5

got noted by them.   Relying on judgment of Punjab and

Haryana High Court, the appeal was dismissed.

6. Aggrieved by the above judgment, Corporation has come

up in this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the Corporation in support of the

appeal contended that the view taken by the courts below

that notice for inviting options have to be personally

served to the employees is erroneous. It is submitted that

Regulations being statutory in nature, it was obligatory

for the employees to opt for pension scheme within six

months from the date of issue of the Regulations failing

which they will deem to have opted and continued with the

CPF. The Regulations having  sent to be put on the notice

board in the Head Office and all Depots and large number of

employees submitted their options, plaintiff cannot

complain that he was not personally served the notice. It

was further submitted that he had not refunded the loan

even after his retirement. He was not entitled for pension

in any manner. The plaintiff had received the entire CPF

amount after his retirement without any protest. He cannot

claim pension. Learned counsel for the respondents refuting

Page 6

6

the  submission of the learned counsel for the appellant

contended that the courts below had taken correct view of

the matter that the plaintiff having not been served the

notice inviting option personally, the plaintiff’s rights

to receive pension cannot be denied.  It is submitted that

had plaintiff aware of that he had to deposit outstanding

amount of loan to avail the pension, he would have

definitely deposited the outstanding amount of loan and in

any view of the matter the appellant could have deducted

the outstanding amount from his retiral benefits before

finalizing the pension. Learned counsel for the respondents

has  placed reliance  on various judgments of  this Court.

While considering the submissions in detail we will refer

the same.  

8. We have considered the submissions of the parties and

perused the records.

9. The employees of the Corporation were governed by the

Contributory Provident Fund Scheme prior to the enforcement

of the Regulations 1992 w.e.f. 15th June, 1992.  The pension

scheme was introduced w.e.f. 15th  June, 1992.

Counter­affidavit has been filed in this appeal by

Page 7

7

Respondent No.1.   Copy of the PEPSU Road Transport

Corporation Employees/Pension Gratuity and General

Provident Fund Regulations 1992 has been brought on record

as Annexure R­3 by the respondents themselves.   A perusal

of Annexure R­3 indicates that the Regulations have been

sent by the Corporation to the following :

“The General Manager,

PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, Patiala, Patiala­II, Bhatinda­I, Bhatinda­II, Faridkot, Budhlada, Barnala, Sangrur,   Kapurthala, Ludhiana & Chandigarh.”

10. Further the Regulations were also endorsed and copy of

it forwarded to several authorities for information and

necessary action. Apart from various officers of the

Corporation, it was also forwarded to the following:

“8. Ad/Officer, Notice Board in the Head Office & in Depots. 9. CAO/FA, CAE, Dy.C.F. & A and all other Officers in H.O.”

11. Regulation 3 deals with application as follows:

“  Regulation­3: Application

(1) These Regulations shall apply to the employees of the PEPSU Road Transport Corporation who:

Page 8

8

(i) were/are appointed on or after the date of issue of Regulations on whole­time and regular basis, and

(ii) were working immediately before the date of issue of Regulations and opt for these Regulations.

(2)  These Regulations shall not apply to the employees who: (a)    Opt out of these Regulations. (b) On deputation with the

Corporation. (c) are paid out of

contingencies. (d) Are work charged employees. (e) Are employed on contract

basis, except when the contract provides otherwise.

(f) Are re­employed after superannuation.

(g) Are specifically excluded wholly or partially from the operation of these regulations and

(h) Opt for the P.R.T.C. Employees   Pension/Gratuity and Regulations General Provident Fund, 1992 but failed to refund the amount of advance taken out of the Employees share of the Contributory   Provident Fund along with interest thereon within the stipulated period.”

Page 9

9

12. Regulation 4 deals with the exercise of option which is

to the following effect:

“4.  Exercise of Option:­  The option under   clause (ii) of the Sub­Rule (1) of Regulation shall be exercised in duplicate in writing in Form No.1 so as to reach the Managing Director as forwarded by General Manager in case of depots and Administrative Officer in the case of headquarters with his countersignature within a period of six months from the date of issue of these Regulations.  Provided that: (i) in the case of an employee, who on the date of issue these regulations abroad or leave, the option shall be exercised within a period of six months from the date of taking the charge of his post.  

(ii) Where an employee is under suspension, on the date of issue of these regulations, the option shall be exercised within a period of six months from the date of his joining the duty:

     (iii) An option once exercised shall be final provide the concerned employee deposit the Corporation’s share of C.P. Fund received by him in advance if any, within, a period of six months from the date of issue of regulations and if a person fails to exercise his option under the said regulations within the specified period referred to above, it shall be deemed that he has opted to continue

Page 10

10

for the existing Contributory Provident Fund benefit.

   (iv) An employee who dies on or after the date of issue these Regulations and who could not exercise his option the legal heir of such employee, who have entitled to receive retirement benefits under the said regulations, shall exercise option subject to the condition that the legal heir shall have to deposit the amount of Corporation’s share of C.P. Fund received by the deceased employee or by him, as the case may be, within a period of six months.  

   (v) The employees recruited after the introduction of said Pension Regulations will be covered under these regulations.  

13. A perusal of the Regulations indicates that the

Regulations are applicable to the following two categories

of employees i.e. :

(i) Who were/are appointed on or after the date of issue of Regulations on whole­time and regular basis, and

(ii) Who were working immediately before the date of issue of Regulations and opt for these Regulations.

Page 11

11

14.  The applicability of Regulations to the employees who

were working immediately before the date of issue of

Regulations i.e. 15th June, 1992 was dependent on the opting

for Regulations within a period of six months from the date

of issue of Regulations as provided under Regulation 4.

15. Further as per Regulation 4 (iii) if an option is not

exercised within a period of six months from the date of

issue of Regulations, it shall be deemed that the employee

has to continue with the existing Contributory Provident

Fund benefit, thus in the event of non­exercise of option

within the period prescribed, the employee is deemed to

continue in the existing CPF benefit. The deeming clause

has been incorporated in the statutory provisions for

achieving a purpose i.e. those who do not opt within six

months new scheme,  they shall continue in the existing CPF

benefit.  There are no exceptions engrafted in the deeming

provisions and the deeming is a legal fiction which

embraces all the employees who do not opt for new pension

scheme. The suit filed by the plaintiff had been decreed

mainly on the ground that notice inviting option has not

been personally served on the plaintiff.  Whether notice is

Page 12

12

required to be personally served to an employee before the

period of six months as provided in Regulation 4 may start

running is the question to be answered.  A plain reading of

the Regulations does not indicate that period of six months

which is provided for submitting an option is dependent on

personal service of notice. Although, as noticed above the

Regulation has been forwarded on 15th June, 1992 itself to

the General Manager of all the Depots and other places and

the letter dated 15th  June, 1992 further contemplates

putting on the notice board in the Head Office and the

Depots,  the Corporation has thus taken care of circulation

of Regulation to all concerned including the Head Office

and all the Depots.  

16. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance

on  judgment of this Court in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran

Nigam and others vs. Bachan Singh,  (2009) 14 SCC 793.  In

the above case   a Circular was issued by the  Dakshin

Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam    for grant of benefit of

work­charge service towards pensionary benefits  dated 6th

August, 1993 which also provided for option in paragraph 5

Page 13

13

of the judgment. The Circular has been extracted which is

to the following effect:

“5. The appellants had issued instructions dated 6.8.1993 for the grant of benefit of work­charge service towards pensionary benefits. The said letter of 6.8.1993 is reproduced as under:­  

“From : The Additional Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board (HSEB), Panchkula Memo No. Ch.9/Pen/G­G­43(93) Dated 6.8.93 Sub: Amendment in the Punjab CSR Vol.II­Adoption of State Govt. Notification The Haryana State Electricity Board in its meeting held on 23.6.1993 has approved the adoption of Haryana Govt. Notification No.1/2 (55)­88­2 FR­II dated 4.2.92 (copy enclosed for ready reference) with regard to the counting of service rendered by the workers in the work charged capacity towards pensionary benefit scheme. 2. However, most of the Board’s workcharged employees are members of Employees Provident Fund (EPF). As such, the pensionary benefit would be subject to the following conditions:­ i) On regularization from workcharged to regular employee, the employee has to submit an option within  a period of  3 months from the date of regularization or from the date of issue of this circular, whichever is later as to whether he/she intends to count the period of workcharged service rendered by him/her towards pensionary benefits or intends to continue to be a member of EPF. The option is required to be furnished in writing to his drawing & Disbursing

Page 14

14

Officer who will authenticate and record its entry in the service book of the employee and also paste the same in the service book so as to form a permanent record for future reference. The Drawing & 4 Disbursing Officer will also inform about his/her option to the appointing authority immediately. ii) The option once exercised will be final and not to be allowed to be changed in any circumstances. In case option is not given within the stipulated period of three months, it will be presumed that he/she intends to continue to be a member of EPF.  iii) In  case, he/she opts for pensionary benefits, he/she has to refund the entire amount of employee’s contribution along with interest thereon, towards their EPF in lumpsum for crediting to the Board’s account, Employee’s contribution alongwith interest is to be deposited with the Board for crediting to his/her GPF account. 3. Similarly, the above benefit will also be available to the pensioners/recipients of family pension of the Board on the same terms and conditions with the exception that they will have to deposit the amount contributed by the Board as Employee’s contribution towards EPF alongwith interest thereon, in lumpsum. The pensioners/recipients of family pension will have to give an Affidavit to the fact that he/she will not claim any interest on the arrear of pensionary benefits which become payable due to adoption of the State Govt. circular. The pensioners/recipient of family pension will submit their option within 3 months from the date of issue of this circular,

Page 15

15

for availing pensionary benefits, to the Head of the office last attended. The option once exercised will be final. In case, option is not given within the stipulated period of 3 months, it will be presumed that he/she intends to continue to be a member of EPF. 4. These instructions may please be got noted from all the employees and acknowledge and receipt of the letter. Sd/­ Under Secretary (PW) For Additional Secretary, HSEB, Panchkula”

17. The  period for option was further extended.  Certain

circulars were further issued on 9th  August, 1994. The

respondent in the above case contended that he had no

knowledge about the instructions, hence he could not

exercise his option for grant of pensionary benefits within

the prescribed time­limit. The writ petition filed by the

respondent was allowed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court

by recording a finding that appellant had failed to produce

any record showing that the instructions dated 6.8.1993 and

9.8.1994 were actually got noted in writing from the

respondent. The said finding has been recorded in paragraph

13  is to the following effect:

“13. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at

Page 16

16

length, came to the definite conclusion that the appellants had failed to produce any record showing that the instructions dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994 were actually got noted in writing from the respondent. The High Court further observed that in the absence of any such material, it can well be inferred that the respondent had no knowledge about the options called by the appellants vide circulars dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994. The High Court also observed that it would be unreasonable to deny pensionary benefits to the respondent despite the said circulars issued by the appellants.”

18. Ultimately, this Court dismissed the appeal relying on

the finding of the High Court that the appellant had failed

to produce any record showing  that the instructions were

actually got noted in writing from the respondent.  

19. The above case was decided on the strength of specific

instructions contained in Circulars dated 6.8.1993 and

9.8.1994. Both the above instructions contained following

as one of the clauses:  “These instructions may please be

got noted from all the employees and acknowledge and

receipt of the letter.”  Thus, noting by the employees and

acknowledge and receipt was a condition incorporated in the

instructions itself   and due to breach of the said

Page 17

17

instructions benefit was given to the respondent in the

said case. The above case has no application in the facts

of the present case where the Regulations do not contain

any such requirement of personal service of notice whereas

Annexure R­3 indicates that Corporation on the same day by

letter dated 15th June, 1992 has circulated Regulations to

all the General Managers with endorsement to be put it on

the Notice Board. The Corporation had taken due care to

inform all its Headquarters and Depots and all concerned

about the Regulations.  

20. The above judgment in  Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran

Nigam  came for consideration before this Court   in  PEPSU

Road Transport Corporation, Patiala vs. Mangal Singh and

others, (2011) 11 SCC 702,  in which same Regulations 1992

applicable to the PEPSU Road Transport Corporation came for

consideration.  In which case  facts  of one of  the cases

being Civil Writ Petition No.14562 of 2004 titled as Jagjit

Singh v. PEPSU RTC were similar to the present case where

respondent did not submit an option within time and after

retirement filed a suit for declaration. Facts were noticed

in paragraph 13 to 18 to the following effect:

Page 18

18

“13. In Civil Appeal No. 3846 of 2010­ PEPSU Road Transport Corporation and Another v. Jagroop Singh (hereinafter referred to as “Jagroop’s appeal”), the respondent had served the Corporation as a driver and was subscriber of C.P.F. and gratuity. Subsequently, on 15.06.1992, the Corporation introduced the Pension Scheme for its employees and also made the Regulations in order to regulate the said scheme.  

14. The Pension Scheme in terms of Regulation 4 of the Regulations envisages the condition for exercise of the option on or before 15.12.1992, by an employee in order to avail the pensionary benefits under the scheme. Subsequently, the Corporation had also extended this period by three months. It  is not in dispute that the respondent had not exercised any option for availing the benefits under the pension scheme.  

15. On 30.11.2000, the 8 respondent took pre­mature voluntary retirement. On 08.06.2001, the respondent received all the retrial benefits under the C.P.F Scheme and gratuity without any objection or protest. However, 01.06.2002, after nearly 10years from his retirement, the respondent filed a suit for declaration for the entitlement to pension and other benefits in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Bathinda.  

16. The learned Civil Judge had passed the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2006 in favor of the respondent on the ground that the respondent was never informed about the option available under

Page 19

19

the Regulations and he came to know about this Scheme only at the time of his retirement. The learned Civil Judge further directed the Corporation to release pensionary benefit to the respondent along with interest @9% per annum till the date of realization.  

17. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2006, the Corporation filed a Regular Second Appeal in the Court of District Judge, Bathinda, the same was allowed vide Judgment and order dated 27.04.2006 on the ground that respondent is estopped from claiming any pensionary benefit by his act of receiving all the retrial benefits under the C.P.F. Scheme at the time of his retirement and failing to exercise the option in terms 9 of Regulation 4 of the Regulations in order to avail the benefits under the pension scheme.  

18. Aggrieved by this order of the Additional District Judge dated 27.04.2006, the respondent filed a Regular Second Appeal in the High Court, the same was allowed vide order and judgment dated 23.12.2008. The High Court has followed its earlier Judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004 titled as ‘Jagjit Singh v. Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another’ dated 03.12.2008, wherein, the appeal was allowed on the ground that the pension scheme was never circulated nor was informed to the employees of the Corporation and mere non­refund of the loan taken from the C.P.F. account would

Page 20

20

not disentitle the employee from claiming pension under the scheme.”  

21. This Court considered the Regulations and held that it

is not necessary to the Corporation to give an individual

notice to the respondents for exercising of option.

Judgment of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam was noticed

and distinguished. It is useful to mention here paragraphs

53 and 54 and 56 which are relevant and extracted as

follows:

“53. The learned counsel for the respondents in support of their contention for want of knowledge of the Pension Scheme due to 35 non­service of individual notices relied on the decision of this Court in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam v. Bachan Singh, (2009) 14 SCC 793. The said decision is clearly distinguishable on facts. In that case, the appellant, Haryana State Electricity Board, had issued instructions dated 23.06.1993 and circular dated 09.08.1994 in order to provide an option to the employees for pensionary benefits in lieu of their work charged service with an express condition of noting of instructions from all the employees and acknowledging the receipt of the letter. In these appeals, before us, there is no such condition of noting from the employees or serving individual notices in the Pension Scheme or Regulations.

Page 21

21

Therefore, in our opinion, Bachan Singh decision will not assist the respondents.

54.   In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of absence of such condition in the scheme, it is not necessary for the Corporation to give an individual notice to respondents for exercising of option for pension Scheme and also for asking respondent to refund the employers contribution of C.P.F. at each stage. Furthermore, when notice or knowledge 36 of the Pension Scheme can be reasonably inferred or gathered from the conduct of the respondents in their ordinary course of business and from surrounding circumstances, then, it will constitute a sufficient notice in the eye of law.

56. The Regulation 4 (iii) of the Regulations is a deeming provision to the effect: firstly, if an employee fails to exercise his option within a period of 6 months from the date of issue of these Regulations and; secondly, even on exercise of option, if an employee fails to refund the amount of advance taken from employers contribution of the C.P.F. within 6 months from the date of issue of these Regulations, then it shall be deemed that employee has opted to continue for the existing C.P.F. benefit. Therefore, the failure on the part of the respondents to opt for the Pension Scheme and refund the advance taken from the employer’s contribution of C.P.F. will disentitle them from 38 claiming any benefit under the Pension Scheme. Therefore, we cannot sustain the Judgment and order passed by the High Court.”

Page 22

22

This Court in the above case set aside the judgment and

orders passed by the High Court and allowed the appeals.  

22. In another subsequent judgment in  Rajasthan Rajya

Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited vs. Dwarka Prasad Koolwal and

others, (2015) 12 SCC 51, both Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran

Nigam and PEPSU Road Transport Corporation vs. Mangal Singh

came to be considered. The question as to whether the

notice inviting option to be served personally to the

employees for option was also considered by this Court.

After noticing the  aforesaid  cases  it was laid down in

paragraphs 42 to 46:

“42. Ultimately the issue boils down to the overall assessment of the awareness level of the employees of the RSEB based on the available data. Based on the facts presented before us, on a composite consideration of the facts and taking a pragmatic view of the situation, a reasonable and legitimate inference can be drawn that the respondents were aware of the notices issued for the exercise of the switch­over option but they chose not to exercise that option either for personal reasons or perhaps because it did not suit them. The position changed in the second half of 1997, by which time it was too late for them to do a rethink.

Page 23

23

43. One of the contentions urged by the respondents as writ petitioners in the High Court was that each employee should have been individually served with each notice inviting the switch­over option. That contention was accepted by the High Court by relying upon Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and Others v. Bachan Singh1 but was not directly canvassed before us. In any event the decision relied upon by the High Court was considered and distinguished in PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v. Mangal Singh and Others. The contention in this regard is a bit collateral, and it is this: the switch­over option form was required to be filled up by each employee clearly indicating the option exercised – either to continue with the CPF Scheme or to switch to the Pension and GPF Regulations. This could be done only if the option form was made available to each employee.

44. In Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam the instructions relating to the exercise of the switch­over option specifically mentioned that: (SCC p.797, para5)  

“(4) These instructions may please be got noted from all the employees and acknowledge the receipt of the letter.”  

The appellants therein were unable to show that the instructions were actually got noted in writing by the respondent. It is under these circumstances that it was inferred that the respondent had no knowledge about the options called by the appellants. Consequently, the denial of

Page 24

24

pension benefits to the respondent was held bad.

45. In PEPSU RTC v. Mangal Singh the decision rendered in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam was distinguished on facts since in the PEPSU appeal there was no condition of noting from the employees or serving individual notices in the Pension Scheme or Regulations. This Court went on to say: (PEPSU RTC case, SCC p.723, para54)

 “54. Furthermore, when notice or knowledge of the Pension Scheme can be reasonably inferred or gathered from the conduct of the respondents in their ordinary course of business and from surrounding circumstances, then, it will constitute a sufficient notice in the eye of the law.”  

46.   The fact situation in the present appeals is somewhat similar. In this context, we may infer that under such circumstances, it was equally the responsibility of the respondents to collect the option forms from the concerned authority, fill them up and submit them to the competent authority. It is too much to expect that even though it was not necessary for each individual employee to be served with each notice, yet there was a duty cast on the RSEB to ensure that each employee is furnished a copy of the option form. If such a contention is accepted, it will amount to circuitously accepting that, though the employees need not individually be served the notices, yet they would have to be

Page 25

25

individually served with a copy of the option form.”

23. In view of the above, it is well settled that the

notice inviting option need not to be personally served to

the employees unless the Regulation or any instruction so

provides. The Regulations 1992 which are being considered

in the present case had already been interpreted in PEPSU

Road Transport Corporation vs. Mangal Singh    as noticed

above. This Court having already held that Regulations 1992

do not contemplate any personal service of notice to

employees the finding in the judgment of the courts below

holding otherwise for decreeing the suit of the plaintiff

are unsustainable. From the facts of the present case it is

clear that although Regulations were in force from 1992,

plaintiff retired on 30th  November, 2011 and after

retirement received CPF benefits without any protest and at

no point of time before retirement he has raised any

grievance. The benefit which was available to him under CPF

scheme was received by the plaintiff, he cannot be allowed

to another benefit flowing from the pension scheme which he

Page 26

26

never opted.   Extending benefit of the pension scheme to

the plaintiff shall be extending double benefits­   CPF

benefit as well as pension scheme which   was never

contemplated by the Regulations. In any view of the matter,

the issue in the present case is covered by the judgment in

PEPSU Road Transport Corporation vs. Mangal Singh (supra)

and we do not propose to take any different view in the

matter. Learned counsel for the respondents has also

contended that in so far as the outstanding amount of CPF

is concerned the said amount could have been deducted by

virtue of Regulation 24 and which amount is to be adjusted

against death­cum­retirement gratuity.  In the present case

the plaintiff having not opted for pension scheme, the

requirement from refunding the advance taken from CPF

within six months is not attracted. More so, in the present

case as has been stated by the appellant in the written

statement in the suit even after retirement an amount of

Rs.4999/­ was due from the advance taken by the respondents

from his CPF amount.  

24. In view of the foregoing, we are of view that the

judgments of the courts below are unsustainable. The suit

Page 27

27

of the plaintiff deserved to be dismissed. In the result

the appeal is allowed. The judgments of the High Court as

well as First Appellate Court and Trial Court are set aside

and the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. The parties

shall bear their own costs.

.....................J. ( S.A. BOBDE )

.....................J.    ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 03, 2017.