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

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, 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 whole-time 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 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. Thecase 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 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 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.

Reasoning:
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.