State Of Rajasthan vs A.N. Mathur & Ors

4. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, are as under:

11. Being aggrieved by the aforestated judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge, the University preferred intra-court appeals and the said appeals have been dismissed by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court by virtue of the impugned judgment and therefore, the State of Rajasthan has filed these appeals because ultimately, the burden of payment of pension to the employees would be passed over to the State of Rajasthan as per Section 36 of the Act.

31. For the aforestated reasons, in our opinion, the order dated 3rd June, 2011 passed by the appellant, whereby both the resolutions passed by the University in relation to giving options to its employees for changing the Contributory Provident Fund scheme to the Pension Scheme, is absolutely just and legal. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court was not correct while quashing and setting aside the order dated 3rd June, 2011 passed by the appellant-State of Rajasthan.

35. In view of the above circumstances, we are of the view that even if the employees were not given any notice, the final decision taken by the University is not bad in law.

36. In the aforestated circumstances, we quash and set aside the impugned judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, which has confirmed the judgment delivered by the learned single Judge. The order dated 3rd June, 2011 passed by the appellant-State shall operate and the employees shall be given retiral benefits as per the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme which was in force prior to 7th December, 2000. So far as the retired employees are concerned, they must have been paid pension in pursuance of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court. As all the appeals have been allowed, some financial adjustments will have to be made and possibly there would be some recovery from some of the employees. We clarify that upon overall adjustment of the entire amount, if any employee has to return any amount to the University, as a special case, no demand shall be raised by the University in view of the fact that the employees must have retired long back and they must have adjusted their financial affairs upon knowing the fact that they had a regular income of pension. We also clarify that if prior to passing the resolution dated 7th December, 2000 by the Board of Management of the University, if there was any scheme about payment of pension to its employees and if some of the employees had opted for the said scheme, payment of pension to such employees would not be affected by virtue of this judgment.

37. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.

....J. (DIPAK MISRA) New Delhi September 23, 2013.

CIVIL APPEAL No........../2013 @ SLP(C)No(s).12350/2013 STATE OF RAJASTHAN Petitioner(s) VERSUS A.N. MATHUR & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No........../2013 @ SLP(C)No(s).12351 of 2013, CIVIL APPEAL No........../2013 @ SLP(C)No(s).12352 of 2013, CIVIL APPEAL No........../2013 @ SLP(C)No(s).12353 of 2013, CIVIL APPEAL No........../2013 @ SLP(C)No(s).12354 of 2013, CIVIL APPEAL No........../2013 @ SLP(C)No(s).12355 of 2013, CIVIL APPEAL No........../2013 @ SLP(C)No(s).12356 of 2013, CIVIL APPEAL No........../2013 @ SLP(C)No(s).12357 of 2013, CIVIL APPEAL No........../2013 @ SLP(C)No(s).12358 of 2013, CIVIL APPEAL No........../2013 @ SLP(C)No(s).12361 of 2013, CIVIL APPEAL No........../2013 @ SLP(C)No(s).12362 of 2013 & CIVIL APPEAL No........../2013 @ SLP(C)No(s).14191 of 2013.

Date: 23/09/2013 These Appeals were called on for pronouncement of Judgment today.

Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave pronounced the reportable judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and His Lordship.

The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)