Pepsu Road Transport Corp., Patiala vs Mangal Singh & Ors

2) In Civil Appeal No. 4111 of 2008 - PEPSU Road Transport Corporation and Another v. Mangal Singh & Ors. (hereinafter referred to as "Mangal's appeal"), respondent joined the services of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Corporation") as driver on 07.11.1974 and his services were governed by service rules of the Corporation which included the eligibility to receive Contributory Provident Fund (for short, "C.P.F.") and gratuity. Subsequently, on 30.06.1982, the services of the respondent were terminated for 2 his unauthorized absence from the duty. The respondent raised an industrial dispute against his termination order, which was dismissed by the Labour Court vide its order dated 11.02.1994. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Labour Court, respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which was allowed vide order dated 10.04.1996, setting aside the order of termination. The High Court further directed the reinstatement of the respondent with effect from 18.06.1996. In the meantime, on 15.06.1992, the Corporation had introduced the Pension Scheme for its employees and also framed Regulations known as Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Employees Pension/Gratuity and General Provident Fund Regulations 1992 (`Regulations' for short) in order to regulate the said scheme. The Pension Scheme in terms of Regulation 4 of the Regulations envisages the condition of exercise of the option within a period of six months from the date of issue of the Regulations by an employee in order to avail the pensionary benefits under the scheme. This time was further extended till 15.12.1992. The Regulation 4 of the said Regulations entitles the employee re-joining after leave or suspension to exercise his option for Pension Scheme within the 3 period of 6 months from the date of his re-joining. The respondent had also submitted nomination form of the C.P.F. scheme. However, the respondent did not receive any retiral benefits on his retirement after attaining the age of superannuation due to pendency of litigation in the High Court regarding the payment of his back wages for the period of his absence from the service. It is not in dispute that respondent did not opt for the Pension Scheme till the date of his retirement. On 09.03.2005, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court for a direction to the Corporation to sanction pensionary benefits to the respondent under the pension scheme. The High Court has allowed the writ petition vide its order dated 19.01.2007 on the ground that the provisions of Regulation 4 do not cover the case of the persons reinstated into service pursuant to the orders of the Court. The High Court further directed the Corporation to allow the respondent to exercise his option for pension scheme within six months from the date of the order and the formalities for payment of pension be finalized within a particular time frame. Being aggrieved, the Corporation has filed this appeal. 4

The High Court (Civil Writ Petition No. 10285 of 1998) vide its 5 order dated 09.08.2007 has allowed the appeal following its earlier decision in RSA No. 2173 of 1994, dated 25.05.2004 titled as `PEPSU Road Transport Corporation v. Sant Ram Fitter', wherein, the High Court has observed that the rejection of the claim of respondent by the Corporation was illegal and arbitrary as the amount of advance can be adjusted against Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity payable to employee on his retirement as per Regulation 24 (3) of the Regulations and it can even be deducted from the C.P.F. of the respondent. In the light of this, the High Court has further directed the Corporation to release pensionary benefits to the respondent with interest @6% per annum from the date of accrual of pension till the date of payment thereof within two months from the date of the order.

4) In SLP (Civil) No. 330 of 2008- PEPSU Road Transport Corporation and Another v. Baldev Singh & Ors. (hereinafter referred to as "Baldev's appeal): The respondent joined the services of the Corporation as a driver on 13.10.1966 and had subscribed to C.P.F. and gratuity. In the year 1986, respondent took loan from his C.P.F. account to the tune of `12,000. Subsequently, on 15.06.1992, the Corporation had introduced 6 the Pension Scheme for its employees along with the Regulations in order to regulate the said scheme. The Pension Scheme in terms of Regulation 3 (h) of the Regulations envisaged the condition of refund of the loan taken from the C.P.F. account by an employee on or before 14.12.1992 in order to avail the pensionary benefits under the said scheme. The respondent had applied for the pension scheme but failed to return the said loan amount. Eventually, the respondent retired as a driver on 30.09.1994 and has received an amount of `80,575/- under C.P.F. Scheme as retiral benefits. However, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana inter-alia praying for pensionary benefits due to him under the pension scheme. The High Court vide its ex- parte order dated 11.8.1997, directed the Corporation to pay all retrial benefits to the respondent within 2 months with interest. Aggrieved by this, the Corporation filed a review petition, which was allowed by the High Court vide its order dated 22.05.1998, directing the Corporation to determine whether any amount is due to the respondent by passing a speaking order. In compliance with the above order of the High Court, the Managing Director of the Corporation, after giving the 7 opportunity of hearing, passed a detailed order rejecting the claim of the respondent. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 18.08.1998, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court has allowed the writ petition vide its order dated 09.08.2007 following its earlier Judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 10285 of 1998 (Bachhitar Singh v. PEPSU Road Transport Corporation).

5) In Civil Appeal No. 3846 of 2010- PEPSU Road Transport Corporation and Another v. Jagroop Singh (hereinafter referred to as "Jagroop's appeal"), the respondent had served the Corporation as a driver and was subscriber of C.P.F. and gratuity. Subsequently, on 15.06.1992, the Corporation introduced the Pension Scheme for its employees and also made the Regulations in order to regulate the said scheme. The Pension Scheme in terms of Regulation 4 of the Regulations envisages the condition for exercise of the option on or before 15.12.1992, by an employee in order to avail the pensionary benefits under the scheme. Subsequently, the Corporation had also extended this period by three months. It is not in dispute that the respondent had not exercised any option for availing the benefits under the pension scheme. On 30.11.2000, the 8 respondent took pre-mature voluntary retirement. On 08.06.2001, the respondent received all the retrial benefits under the C.P.F Scheme and gratuity without any objection or protest. However, 01.06.2002, after nearly 10years from his retirement, the respondent filed a suit for declaration for the entitlement to pension and other benefits in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Bathinda. The learned Civil Judge had passed the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2006 in favor of the respondent on the ground that the respondent was never informed about the option available under the Regulations and he came to know about this Scheme only at the time of his retirement. The learned Civil Judge further directed the Corporation to release pensionary benefit to the respondent along with interest @9% per annum till the date of realization. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2006, the Corporation filed a Regular Second Appeal in the Court of District Judge, Bathinda, the same was allowed vide Judgment and order dated 27.04.2006 on the ground that respondent is estopped from claiming any pensionary benefit by his act of receiving all the retrial benefits under the C.P.F. Scheme at the time of his retirement and failing to exercise the option in terms 9 of Regulation 4 of the Regulations in order to avail the benefits under the pension scheme. Aggrieved by this order of the Additional District Judge dated 27.04.2006, the respondent filed a Regular Second Appeal in the High Court, the same was allowed vide order and judgment dated 23.12.2008. The High Court has followed its earlier Judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 14562 of 2004 titled as `Jagjit Singh v. Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another' dated 03.12.2008, wherein, the appeal was allowed on the ground that the pension scheme was never circulated nor was informed to the employees of the Corporation and mere non-refund of the loan taken from the C.P.F. account would not disentitle the employee from claiming pension under the scheme.

14) The Regulations provide for the grant of retirement benefits to the employees of the PEPSU Road Transport Corporation with effect from 15.06.1992.

(3) The dues as assessed including those dues which come to the notice subsequently and which remain outstanding till the date of retirement of the employee, shall be adjusted against the amount of death-cum- retirement gratuity becoming payable to the employee on his retirement.

10. There is, therefore, no escape from the conclusion that Regulations have force of law. The order of the High Court must, therefore, be reversed on this point unhesitatingly.

41) The Regulation 4 (iii) of the Regulations is a deeming provision to the effect: firstly, if an employee fails to exercise his option within a period of 6 months from the date of issue of these Regulations and; secondly, even on exercise of option, if an employee fails to refund the amount of advance taken from employers contribution of the C.P.F. within 6 months from the date of issue of these Regulations, then it shall be deemed that employee has opted to continue for the existing C.P.F. benefit. Therefore, the failure on the part of the respondents to opt for the Pension Scheme and refund the advance taken from the employer's contribution of C.P.F. will disentitle them from 38 claiming any benefit under the Pension Scheme. Therefore, we cannot sustain the Judgment and order passed by the High Court.

42) The appeals are accordingly allowed and the impugned Judgment and orders passed by the High Court are set aside. There will be no order as to costs.

May 12, 2011 39