Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.     6639      OF     2012   [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 36125 of 2011]

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation .. Appellant

Versus

President, Rajasthan Roadways Union & Another .. Respondents

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   

K.     S.     RADHAKRISHNAN,     J.   

1. Leave granted.

2. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether the  

widow of an employee is entitled to get family pension under the  

Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 (for short ‘Scheme’), on the  

failure of the employer to exercise his option under the scheme,  

especially when the claimant has already received the entire Provident  

Fund amount, from the Fund maintained by the Corporation.   

Page 2

2

3. Respondent Union raised a claim on behalf of the widow of late  

Hari Singh for family pension under the Scheme before the State  

Government.  The State Government referred the matter to the Labour  

and Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (for short ‘Tribunal’) for adjudication of  

the claim.  The Tribunal, after examining the Scheme, took the view  

that the employee was not informed of his right to exercise the option  

under the Scheme, consequently, allowed the application and gave a  

direction to the appellant-Corporation to disburse family pension to the  

widow of Hari Singh, who was working as a Driver in the service of the  

Corporation.   

4. The appellant-Corporation took up the matter before the High  

Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench by filing S.B. Civil  

Writ Petition No. 2099 of 1999, which was dismissed by the learned  

Single Judge  and, later, confirmed by the Division Bench as well vide  

its judgment dated 29.6.2011 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.  

960 of 2011.  Aggrieved by the same, appellant-Corporation has come  

up with this appeal.

5. Shri S. K. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the  

appellant-Corporation, submitted that the Tribunal as well as the  

Courts below have misunderstood the provisions of the Scheme and

Page 3

3

omitted to take note of all relevant and material facts for adjudication  

of the claim raised for family pension.  Learned counsel submitted that  

there was a complete misreading of the facts which led to incorrect  

reasoning resulting into rendering a wrong judgment on facts as well  

as on law.

6. Shri B. Ramana Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the  

respondent Union, submitted that this Court shall not interfere with  

the concurrent findings rendered by all the authorities below and that  

no question of law has been raised for determination by this Court.

7. In order to examine the rival contentions raised by the parties, it  

is necessary to understand the facts of the case so that this Court can  

examine whether the Tribunal as well as the Courts below have  

rendered a perverse finding, which a reasonable person would not  

have arrived at under the facts and circumstances of a particular case.

8. The employee Hira Singh was appointed as a Driver in the service  

of the appellant-Corporation on 22.3.1962, and later, he was  

promoted to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector.  In the year 1971,  

the Central Government introduced a scheme relating to family  

pension by making suitable amendments in the Employees Provident

Page 4

4

Fund and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 (for short ‘P.F. Act’).  

Employees desirous of availing of the benefit of the Scheme had to  

exercise their option under the Scheme and the last date for  

submission of the application for the said purpose was 1.9.1971.  

According to the appellant-Corporation, Hari Singh did not exercise  

that option under the Scheme and, while in service, he died on  

30.5.1982.  Contributory Provident Fund, as per the rules, was  

disbursed to the widow of the employee and the same was received as  

well.  No claim for family pension was raised since the employee had  

not opted for the benefit of the Scheme.

9. Respondent Union, however, took up the claim of the widow after  

nine years by filing a petition before the State Government which, we  

have already indicated, was referred to the Tribunal and was decided  

in favour of the respondent Union.

10. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether Hari  

Singh had opted for the benefit of the Scheme which came into force  

in the year 1971 and whether there was failure on the part of  

appellant-Corporation in promptly informing the employees of the  

existence of such a Scheme and their right to exercise option for  

family pension.  

Page 5

5

11. We find, on facts, that the Corporation had issued a notification  

on 30.7.1971 seeking necessary option from the employees.  In  

pursuance of that notification, several employees had exercised their  

option for the Scheme and a few did not opt for that, since they were  

keen on getting the provident fund under the Central Provident Fund  

Scheme (for short ‘CPF Scheme’).   Hari Singh did not opt for the  

Scheme like several other employees, since he was keen on getting  

the provident fund under the CPF Scheme, rather than family pension  

under the Scheme.    

12. Appellant-Corporation has produced the notification issued by  

them on 9.4.1971, as Annexure P/1, the operative part of which reads  

as follows:

“I am to forward herewith a copy of the employees’  Family Pension Scheme, 1971 which has come into force  with effect from 1st March, 1971 for your information and  explaining the provisions of the Family Pension-cum-Life  Assurance Scheme to all the members of the Employees’  Provident Fund.

2. According to para 4 of this scheme every  employee, who is a member of the Employees’  Provident  Fund or of Provident Funds of factories and other  establishments exempted under section 17 of the Act as on  28.2.1971 have to exercise their option in Form I (copies  attached) within a period of three months from the 1st  

March 1971, and furnish the same to this office immediately  after the specified time.

Page 6

6

3. The employees who opt or who are entitled to  become a member of the Family Pension Fund subsequently  after 1st March, 1971 be asked to furnish the particulars  concerning themselves and their family in Form 2 (copies  attached) and the same may also be sent (along with  option Form No. 1) where-ever necessary.   

4. The option forms and Nomination forms may  please be sent duly supported with the following  statement:-

No. of members No. of members No. of members  (Subscribers) opted for Family opted to continue as     on     28.2.1971  Pension     Scheme  existing P.F.                                                                 benefit  

5. Further requirement of Forms No. 1 and 2 may  be had either directly from this office or the Provident Fund  Inspectors at Jaipur, Jodhpur & Ajmer.

6. The instructions regarding submission of other  information and returns will follow:”

13. We notice that the above notification was sent to all the  

employees of the appellant-Corporation for information with a request  

that they should give wide publicity to the scheme and the notification  

was issued from the Office of the Regional Provident Fund  

Commissioner.  Following the above notification, the Corporation also  

sent a communication dated 30.7.1971 to the Regional  

Manager/Administrative Officer/Depot Manager/Assistant Depot  

Manager, RSRTC and all the offices informing about the notification

Page 7

7

issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner stating as  

follows:

“All the employees of the Raj. State Road Transport  Corporation who are contributing towards the Provident  Fund are eligible to become the members of family pension  scheme 1971 and it is obligatory on the part of the  employer to get the option referred to in sub-section (i) of  para 1 exercised by every members to whom the option is  given to become the member of this scheme before 31st  

August, 1971.  I am, therefore, sending herewith one copy  of Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 along with  declaration forms and Option forms which are required to  be explained to each subscriber of the Provident Fund and  get the same signed by each employee contributing to the  Provident Fund as on 1st March, 1971.

It shall be your duty under clause 4(3) of the scheme  to see that the option from each subscriber of opted is a list  of optees in the following proforma may also be prepared  and the same may be sent along with declaration forms and  option forms executed by the subscriber with special  messenger by 31st August, 1971 positively.

List of optees of Family Pension Scheme 1971.

Name of Depot/Region/Office….

S.No. Name of the  employee  along with  Father’s  name

C.P.F.  A/c No.

Pay  including  D.A.

P.F.  amount  @ 6 of  pay  including  D.A.

1 2 3 4 5

Family Total P.F. Remarks

Page 8

8

pension  amount  11 of pay  including  D.A.

5 + 6 subscription  being  deducted at  present

6 7 8 9

Signature of Head of Office with seal

It is also requested that the scheme may kindly be  explained to go through carefully and the relevant benefits  be explained to all the subscribers while taking declarations  and options form them so that they may consider to join  the scheme and opt for the same in good numbers, and I  shall also request you to kindly give the publicity of this  scheme through the notice Board also.

Kindly acknowledge.”

14. When we read the notification dated 9.4.1971 issued by the  

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner along with the communication  

letter dated 30.7.1971 issued by the appellant-Corporation, it is  

evident that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as well as  

appellant-Corporation had informed all the departments/unions, as  

well as employees working under the Corporation to exercise their  

necessary option if they wanted to get the benefit of the Family  

Pension.   Facts would indicate that several employees at that time  

had opted and few of them did not opt for that, since they were  

interested to get provident fund under the CPF Scheme and not the  

family pension under the Scheme, after the death of the employee.

Page 9

9

We have no reason to think that the employees were unaware of the  

notification issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as  

well as the Corporation. Facts would also indicate that the wife of Hari  

Singh had already received the entire provident fund amount and,  

since Hari Singh had not opted under the Scheme.  However, after  

nine years, respondent Union is raising a dispute which, in our view, in  

absolutely untenable.  The Tribunal as well as Courts below have  

committed a grave error in not properly appreciating the facts of the  

case and rendered a perverse finding which necessarily calls for  

interference.

15. Accordingly, we are inclined to allow this appeal and set aside the  

award of the Tribunal as well as the judgments of the learned single  

Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court.   However, there will  

be no order as to costs.

……………………………….J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

..………………………………J. (Dipak Misra)

New Delhi, September 18, 2012