Case: Pepsu Road Tpt Corpn, Patiala Vs. Amandeep Singh

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.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 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 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 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 death-cum-retirement 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.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]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. Counter-affidavit has been filed in this appeal by 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.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 non-exercise 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 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.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 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 death-cum-retirement 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.