In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur J U D G M E N T 1. DBSAW No.2681/2011 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Hari Kishore Sharma & anr 2. DBSAWNo.224/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Vipin Kumar Agarwal & anr 3.DBSAW No.225/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Mohan Lal & Ors. 4.DBSAW No.227/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Raj Kumar Agarwal & anr. 5. DBSAWNo.228/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. S.K. Sharma & Ors. 6. DBSAWNo.231/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Sobhag mal Chandak & anr 7. DBSAWNo.232/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Kamal Kishore Kapoor & anr 8. DBSAWNo.233/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Nagwar lal Harkut & Ors. 9. DBSAWNo.234/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Radhey Shyam Gupta & anr 10. DBSAWNo.241/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Prakash Chandra Saxena & anr 11. DBSAWNo.243/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Kumar & anr 12. DBSAWNo.244/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Shiv Lal Yadav & anr 13. DBSAWNo.248/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Mahesh Chand Agarwal 14. DBSAWNo.249/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Smt. Asha Batra & Ors. 15. DBSAWNo.252/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Uttam Prakash Lalwani & Ors. 16. DBSAWNo.253/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Kailash Kanwatia & anr 17. DBSAWNo.259/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Suresh Chand Tiwari & Ors. 18. DBSAWNo.261/2012 CMDJVVNL & Ors. Vs. Satya Narayan Hinger & anr 19. DBSAWNo.263/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Shrikrishna Dutta Sharma & Ors 20.DBSAWNo.265/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Praveen Kumar Mathur & anr. 21. DBSAWNo.266/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Manoj Kumar Gupta & Ors. 22. DBSAWNo.267/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. K.C. Mittal & Ors 23.DBSAWNo.268/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Hari Chandra bakhtani & anr 24.DBSAWNo.269/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Agarwal & Ors. 25. DBSAWNo.270/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Lalit Kumar Bakliwal & Ors. 26.DBSAWNo.271/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Suresh Kumar Rajpurawala & ors. 27. DBSAWNo.273/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Bhagwati Prasad & Ors. 28. DBSAWNo.274/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Dwarka Prasad Koolwal & Ors. 29.DBSAWNo.276/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Shankar Lal Napit & Ors. 30.DBSAWNo.588/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Heera Lal Verma & Ors. 31.DBSAWNo.589/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Hemant Mishra & Ors. 32.DBSAWNo.616/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Tank & Ors. 33.DBSAWNo.619/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Rakesh Kumar Kasliwal & anr. 34. DBSAWNo.620/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Nikhil Choudhary & Ors. 35. DBSAWNo.621/2012 RRVVNL & Anr. Vs. Urmila Mathur & Ors. Date of Judgment 17.05.2012 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Hon'ble Dr. Justice Smt. Meena V. Gomber Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Counsel, with Mr. J.M. Saxena, Counsel for the Appellants Mr. R.N. Mathur, Senior Counsel ] Mr. Ashok Gaur, Senior Counsel ] Mr. H.O.P. Mathur ] Mr. Nitin Jain ] Counsel for the Respondents
Mr. S.S. Sharma, ] Mr. Akhil Simlote ] By the Court (Oral) :
These appeals have been preferred by the appellant-R.R.V.V.N. Ltd., against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21st October, 2011 by which the bunch of 83 writ petitions has been allowed by the learned Single Judge directing that the order of rejection dated 26.06.2008 and the Circular dated 12.03.1999 are quashed and set aside. All the R.S.E.B. Existing employees covered under Reg.3 (k) and 3 (n) of Pension & G.P.F. Regulations, 1988, including writ petitioners or their legal representatives, who are interested to submit their options, are at liberty to exercise option, as required to be furnished in the Form appended to (1) R.S.E.B. Employees Pension & (2) General Provident Fund Regulations, 1988 within reasonable time, as considered by respondents to be appropriate and if such options are furnished, the respondents may take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
The appellant-Corporation (Nigam), which was originally R.S.E.B. has challenged the decision of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the learned Single Judge has held that it was incumbent upon the Board to have given wide publicity for seeking options and notice to individual employees at the time of bringing into force of the new Scheme and inviting options from them.
Learned Senior Counsel - Shri A.K. Sharma, assisted by Mr. J.M. Saxena submitted that it was not at all necessary to have given individual notices and that the learned Single Judge has, therefore, committed an error so far as aforesaid findings are concerned.
We find from the judgment of the learned Single Judge that the learned Single Judge has taken into account the entire background in the factual aspect regarding exercise of option and the fact that the Board itself had taken a decision time and again extending date for inviting pension, as referred at Page 23 of the judgment.
Learned Single Judge also came to the conclusion that the geographical conditions within the State were such that the employees of the Board, who were working in the remote areas could not have acquired knowledge about the decision of the Board asking them to exercise their options as per the new Scheme and as such the judgments cited by the appellants were distinguished based upon the peculiar facts and circumstances prevailing in the State of Rajasthan which prevented the employees to have acquired the knowledge about the new Scheme and requirement of exercise of options in accordance with the same.
Learned Single Judge has, therefore, come to the conclusion that the Board failed to give wide publicity to the circular issued by it inviting options and the aforesaid findings are based upon the material, which was placed before the learned Single Judge which is a finding of fact.
Learned Single Judge has categorically held as follows :-
It appears from the record that no one has taken care of being looked into and there is no whisper of these notices being published or circulated by giving wide publicity or pasting notices on the conspicuous places of the offices of the Board and that apart, no material has been placed on record, which can prima-facie support that notices calling options details whereof (supra) are widely circulated or the mode which was adopted by the respondents giving it a wide publicity to make the employees who are upto the grass root level aware of their right available to exercise option, if desired. It is further relevant to record that while representations were made by the petitioners in compliance of the order of the Court, that also came to be rejected vide order dated 26.06.2008.
[Emphasis Supplied] Learned Single Judge, therefore, came to the conclusion based upon the material on record or the absence of the same showing otherwise that the exercise undertaken by the appellant for inviting options amounted to giving sufficient notice and publicity in the facts and circumstances of the case as would be expected in such matters.
In the facts and circumstances, therefore, we find no merit in the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that sufficient notice had been given to the writ petitioners to exercise their options.
Learned Single Judge has again in the judgment held that at the same time, there is no material placed on record in support of the notices inviting options (supra) that they were at all given wide publicity through circulation to make it known to each of employees posted in remote areas of Rajasthan and to obtain wishes of individual employees of the Board. In the opinion of this Court, right conferred upon RSEB employees to exercise option to come over pensionary benefits under Pension & GPF Scheme, 1988 has been seriously infringed and such action of the respondents in no manner can be considered to be in conformity with the mandate of Art.14 of the Constitution.
This being a finding of fact based upon the appreciation of the material placed on record which was considered by the learned Single Judge and it was not the case that the material placed was not considered by the learned Single Judge.
We find no reason to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Single Judge in the facts and circumstances of this appeal.
Next submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge has given relief not only to the petitioners, but also to the legal representatives of the petitioners and other employees who had not approached the Court.
So far as aforesaid submission is concerned, we find that the learned Single Judge has very consciously given directions in the light of the facts of the case. In Page 40 of the judgment learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that the writ petitions were filed by the petitioners, who are or were in service on the date when the petition was filed.
The relevant extract of the judgment in this behalf reads as follows :-
That apart, on the date of presentation of the writ petitions, the petitioners were in service and it has been informed that few of them pendente petitions have retired and few of them have died and their legal representatives were brought on record. Be that as it may, they must be making their contribution as provided being member of CPF Scheme and being in service are subscribers
It is in the light of the above while deciding the writ petition and in issuing the direction the learned Single Judge has observed as follows :-
In the net result, all the writ petitions succeed and are hereby allowed. Communication of rejection dt.26.06.2008 and Circular dt.12.03.1999 are quashed & set aside. All the R.S.E.B. Existing employees covered under Reg.3 (k) and 3 (n) of Pension & G.P.F. Regulations, 1988 including writ petitioners or their legal representatives, who are interested to submit their options, are at liberty to exercise option as required to be furnished in the Form appended to (1) R.S.E.B. Employees Pension & (2) General Provident Fund Regulations, 1988 within reasonable time as considered by respondents to be appropriate and if such options are furnished, the respondents may take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
However, it is made clear that there is no need to file any other writ petition by any of existing employees covered under aforesaid Scheme, 1988 (supra), and the respondents are directed to afford opportunity to all similarly situated employees even if they have not approached this Court and if otherwise eligible may be granted permission to submit their respective options if inclined to become members of Pension/GPF Scheme, 1988. the procedure may be adopted in the light of observations made (supra). No costs.
In the light of the above the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge would open a pendora-box cannot be accepted, as the directions have been given in respect of the petitioners, who were in service and the petitioners, who may have retired and in the case of the petitioners, who have died during the pendency of the petitions a right to the legal representatives has been given to submit their options as well as to the existing employees, who are in service of the Board at present. Thus, the contention that the learned Single Judge has given a direction even in favour of those who have retired and did not submit their options and have taken the retirement benefits of G.P.F. etc., has no legs to stand and is against the directions issued in this case as the directions clearly relate to those who had approached the Court while in service and those who are in service even till date and want to exercise their options on account of failure of the appellants to give wide publicity of the new Scheme.
In the facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the aforesaid submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Board that the learned Single Judge has erred in giving the benefits of the judgment to all the retired persons.
No other point was argued.
There is no merit in these appeals.
Resultantly, all these appeals as well as stay applications are dismissed summarily.
Let a copy of this judgment be placed on each file.
[Dr. Meena V. Gomber] J. [Dalip Singh] J. Ashok/
Certificate - All corrections have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Ashok Kumar Songara/P.A.cum J.W