Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5274 OF 2008

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & others    …. Appellants

Vs.

Madu Giri (Dead) through Lrs. & Anr. …. Respondents

    AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 952 OF 2009

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Another     …. Appellants

Vs.

Mohini Devi   …. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

M.Y. EQBAL, J.:

1. The short question involved in these appeals is : Whether  

the  employees  of  the  appellant-Rajasthan  State  Road  Transport  

Corporation  are  eligible  to  claim  pensionary  benefits  under  the  

Pension Scheme in view of  the non-compliance with the essential  

conditions  stipulated  in  the  Regulations  which  govern  the  said  

Pension Scheme?

1

Page 2

2. Admittedly,  the  concerned  employees  [Madugiri  and  

Yakub Khan, respondents (since deceased) in Civil Appeal No.5274  

of 2008 and late Nathu Singh, respondent’s husband in Civil Appeal  

No.  952 of  2009]  of  the appellant-Corporation retired from service  

respectively on 31.1.1991, 31.1.1992 and 31.3.1992 and were paid  

Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) including the share of employer’s  

contribution.   On  11.1.1993,  the  Rajasthan  State  Road  Transport  

Corporation  Employees  Pension  Regulations,  1989  (in  short  “the  

Regulations”)  came  into  force.   As  per  clause  3(1)  of  the  said  

Regulations, option was given to the existing employees as well as  

those  employees  who  retired  before  coming  into  force  of  these  

Regulations  but  before  acceptance  of  option  and  grant  of  benefit  

condition  was  placed  on  the  employees  to  refund  the  employer’s  

share of CPF with interest.  The above named employees exercised  

their option in favour of the pension scheme under the Regulations,  

but  did  not  deposit  the  amount  of  employer’s  share  of  CPF  with  

interest in lumpsum within the stipulated time.  

3. Clause 3(1) of the said Regulations reads as under:

“`Option’ means a written consent of the existing regular  employees for  pensionary and gratuity benefit along with  the adoption of the General Provident Fund Regulations,  

2

Page 3

1989  or  to  continue  as  member  of  the  existing  CPF  scheme covered under the EPF Act, 1952 within a period  of 90 days from the date of publication of RSRTC Pension  Regulations.   Any  existing  employee  who  does  not  exercise  the option within specified period of  90 days  shall be deemed to have exercised option in favour of the  Pension and CPF Regulations.

The  option  once  exercised  or  deemed  to  have  been  exercised  shall  be  considered  as  final  and  no  representation in this respect shall be considered valid for  any revision.  It will be for the personal responsibility of  the departmental officer to ensure that his option reaches  timely in the office of Dy. G.M. (P&F) RSRTC, Jaipur.

xxx xxx xxx   In case any employee or  his  nominee obtains the final  refund  of  CPF  between  1st  April  1989  and  specified  period  for  exercising  option,  the  employer’s  share  with  accrued interest time to time shall have to be deposited in  lump sum before granting the option for pension.”  

4. As the amount of employer’s share of CPF with interest in  

lumpsum was not deposited by the employees within the stipulated  

time, their claim for grant of pensionary benefit was rejected by the  

appellant-Corporation.   The  decision  of  the  Corporation  was  

challenged  in  the  High  Court  by  filing  writ  petitions  which  were  

disposed of  with  direction to  the Corporation to  accept  the option  

submitted by the employees with regard to grant of pension and to  

allow the same  to the employees by deducting the amount of excess  

3

Page 4

provident  fund  with  interest  which  is  said  to  be  granted  earlier.  

Aggrieved by the orders passed in writ petitions, the appellants herein  

filed D.B. Civil Special Appeals (W) before the Division Bench of the  

High Court which were dismissed by the orders impugned in these  

appeals.

5. After  hearing  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

parties  and  perusing  the  Regulations,  particularly  Clause  3(1)  as  

quoted hereinabove,  we are of the considered opinion that the view  

taken by the learned Single Judge and also the Division Bench is not  

in  consonance  with  the  conditions  presecribed  in  the  said  

Regulations.

6. The learned Single  Judge disposed of  the writ  petition  

filed by Madugiri and Yakub Khan,  with the following directions:

“Accordingly  this  petition  for  writ  is  disposed  of  with  a  direction  to  the  respondent  Rajasthan  State  Road  Transport Corporation to accept the option submitted by  the petitioners with regard to  grant of pension and then  the same be allowed  to them by deducting the amount of  excess provident  fund with interest  which is  said to be  granted  earlier.   The  respondent  Corporation   shall  complete all  formalities with regard to grant  of  pension  and deduction of excess provident fund amount said to be  paid to the petitioners within a period of four months from  

4

Page 5

the date the  petitioners submit  a certified copy of  this  order to the respondent No.3 along with a representation  for acceptance of pension in terms of this order.”

Similar directions were issued by the learned Single Judge in another  

writ petition filed by Mohini Devi.

7. The Division Bench has considered the Regulations but  

failed to notice that there is apparent error in the order passed by the  

learned Single Judge.  Indisputably, the concerned employees retired  

from service in 1991 and 1992 and after retirement they were paid  

CPF including the share of employer’s contribution.  Hence, as per  

Clause  3  of  the  Regulations,  no  right  accrued  to  the  

appellants/employees  to  claim  pensionary  benefits  without  first  

depositing the amount and complying with the Regulations.  

8. The matter was examined by this Court in  Pepsu Road  

Transport  Corporation,  Patiala vs.  Mangal  Singh  and  Others  

(2011) 11 SCC 702  wherein it was held as under:

 “51. The common thread which runs through all these  

appeals  canvassed  before  us  is  that  the  respondents  have failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the  Regulations,  which  govern  the  Pension  Scheme.  We  

5

Page 6

have  already  considered  the  nature  and  effect  of  the  regulations,  which  are  made  under  a  statute.  These  statutory regulations require to be interpreted in the same  manner  which  is  adopted  while  interpreting  any  other  statutory  provisions.  The  Corporation  as  well  as  the  respondents  are  obliged  and  bound  to  comply  with  its  mandatory  conditions  and  requirements.  Any  action  or  conduct deviating from these conditions shall render such  action illegal and invalid. Moreover, the respondents have  availed the retiral benefits arising out of CPF and gratuity  without any protest.

52. The respondents in all  these appeals, before us,  have  made  a  claim  for  pensionary  benefits  under  the  Pension  Scheme  for  the  first  time  only  after  their  retirement  with  an  unreasonable  delay  of  more  than  8  years.  It  is  not  in  dispute,  in  some  appeals,  that  the  respondents never opted for the Pension Scheme for their  alleged want of  knowledge for  non-service of  individual  notices.  In  other  appeals,  although  the  respondents  applied  for  the  option  of  the  Pension  Scheme  but  indisputably  never  fulfilled  the  quintessential  conditions  envisaged  by  the  Regulations  which  are  statutory  in  nature.”

9. We are,  therefore,  of  the opinion that,  in the facts and  

circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by this  

Court  in  the  judgment  referred  to  hereinabove,  impugned  orders  

passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the  

High Court cannot be sustained in law.

6

Page 7

10. For the reasons aforesaid, these appeals are allowed and  

the impugned orders are set aside.  However, there shall be no order  

as to costs.

……………………………..J. (P. Sathasivam)

……………………………..J. (M.Y. Eqbal)

New Delhi, April 26 , 2013.

7

Page 8