Dismissed

R S R T C through M D and Others v. Gulam Sarvar

Rajasthan HC15 Dec 2017CSA/264/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a second appeal against a judgment denying a pension claim. The High Court held that the core issue concerned the factual finding of whether the respondent submitted the required option form for the pension scheme. Finding this to be a pure question of fact, the Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage as no substantial question of law is involved.

R S R T C through M D and Others Vs Gulam… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 264 / 2013

¶3

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Jaipur, through Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur

¶4

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Chittorgragh Depot

¶5

Chief Pension and Provident Fund Officer, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, (Headquarter), Jaipur

¶6

----Appellants-appellants-defendants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Gulam Sarvar son of Shri Alaudeen by caste Musalman, resident of E-31, R.K. Colony Behind Aabakari Godam, Bhilwara, At Present Ex Traffic Inspector, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Chittorgragh, Depot

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. J K Singhi, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Amitabh Jatav

¶11

For Respondent(s) : Mr. V K Mathur

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Judgment

¶13

15/12/2017

¶14

The appellants-defendants have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2011 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil Regular Appeal No.37/2011 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant-defendants against the judgment & decree passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) & Metropolitan Magistrate East, Jaipur Metropolitan in Civil Suit No.16/2009, has been dismissed.

¶15

Having heard counsel for both the parties, this Court finds

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CSA-264/2013]

¶18

that the issue raised by the plaintiff-respondent was relating to grant of pension under the pension scheme floated by the appellant-Corporation. The question of fact, which both the courts below have decided, is whether the plaintiff-respondent had submitted his option for pension scheme as required under the notification issued by the appellant-corporation. Both the courts below have reached to a factual finding that the plaintiffrespondent was originally in the Rajasthan State Roadways Department from 28/06/1962 as a Conductor and was therefore entitled to receive pension under the State Government Rules. He was promoted as Assistant Traffic Inspector in the year 1989 and submitted his option form for seeking pension as applicable to Rajasthan State Government Employees. He was again asked by the appellant-corporation to submit his option under the CPF Scheme on 09/03/1988 and for the pension relating to the State Government Service. The plaintiff-respondent opted for Pension Scheme and the submission as raised by the appellant relating to the option having not been furnished by the plaintiff-respondent has been negated. This Court is of the considered view that such question is a pure question of fact which can only be examined at the trial stage and no question of law can be said to have been arisen for examination by this Court. The grant of pension to retired employees is a pure question of fact.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant has taken this Court to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala Vs. Amandeep Singh and ors.(2017) 2 SCC 766 as well as Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[CSA-264/2013]

¶22

& others Vs. Madu Giri (Dead) through Lrs. & Anr. : (Civil Appeal No. 5274 of 2008), decided on 26/04/2013 to submit that option of the plaintiff-respondent was not proper and could not have been accepted for the purpose of grant of pension. This submission would, however, not be available to be raised in order to make a question of law as a finding of fact has been arrived at by the trial court in its judgment regarding the fact of the plaintiffrespondent opting for pension, provident fund and that appellantcorporation had failed to perform its duty in deducting the amount from the salary of the plaintiff-respondent after May, 1969. An affidavit of the appellant’s witnesses has also been noted.

¶23

A perusal of the impugned judgments of both the learned courts below would reveal that while recording their findings, both the learned courts below have properly appreciated the evidence available on record in accordance with law. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned courts below being findings of facts, require no interference of this Court in second appeal.

¶24

For the discussions hereinabove, this Court of the view that no question of law much less any substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal, hence, the same is liable to be dismissed at admission stage.

¶25

The second appeal is dismissed accordingly.

¶26

(PRAKASH GUPTA)J.

R S R T C through M D and Others v. Gulam Sarvar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R S R T C through M D and Others v. Gulam Sarvar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murari Lal Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Chaturbhuj and Ors. Vs Harpreet Kaur and Ors.

Chaturbhuj and Anr. Vs Mohd Khalid

Rajendra Kumar Vs Wakf Committee, Magrol, through

Vikram Singh Hada Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt Saroj Bai Vs State of Raj and Ors.