Allowed

R.R.V.P.N. Ltd., Jaipur v. D. D. Joshi and Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 Jul 2019SAW/1119/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal and quashed an order granting additional pension switch-over opportunity to employees, stating it was contrary to a Supreme Court decision which held that further repeated opportunities could not be given after multiple notices.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order and judgment set aside; appeal allowed. Withdrawal application dismissed.

R.R.V.P.N. Ltd., Jaipur Vs D. D. Joshi and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1119/2013

¶3

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.

----Appellants

Versus

D. D. Joshi And Ors

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vipul Dharnia For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.L. Chouhan, Mr. Himmat Jagga, Mr. Dhirendra Pandey on behalf of Mr. Kamal Dave

¶9

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶10

Order

¶11

01/07/2019

¶12

This appeal challenges an order which has granted relief to the respondents/writ petitioners based upon a common judgment [ Hari Kishore Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ( CWP No.5940/2003 and connected petitions) decided on 21.10.2011]. The net effect of the main judgment which is followed by the impugned order was that the employees covered by the Pension Scheme formulated in 1988, had to be granted one additional opportunity to opt for pension and migrate from existing CPF Scheme.

¶13

The judgment of the Court granting such relief became subject matter of appeal [C.A. No.7483/2014] in Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. Dwarka Prasad Koolwal & Ors. After analyzing the detailed facts and the provisions of the various schemes, the Supreme Court noted that not less than eight

¶14

(2 of 5)

¶15

[SAW-1119/2013]

¶16

separate opportunities were provided between the years 1989 to 1997 to all employees - numbering about 50,000, for switching over or migration from CPF Scheme to Pension Scheme under the Regulations. Out of 50,000 employees, who were covered, 46,000 had exercised the option at different point of time to switch over from the CPF Scheme to Pension Scheme. Taking this into account, the Supreme Court held that the further repeated opportunities could not be given and the directions of this Court, rendered to prolong indefinitely the life of a Scheme and therefore could not be sustained. The relevant portions of the judgment of

¶17

the Supreme Court are extracted below:-

¶18

“ 28. For the sake of convenience a summary of the various notices issued by the RSEB are put down in the form of a chart:

¶19

_No. _	Notice date	Applicability	Validity	Special reason	Publicity	Remark	Options received
1^st	06.01. 1989	All employees	90 days	--	Wide publicity through pasting on the notice board	On non receipt of option, employee deemed to have retained CPF benefits	2741
2^nd	04.04. 1989	-do-	45 days	Non- publicati on of Hindi version	No specific mention	-	31217
3^rd	19.05. 1990	All employees including daily rated and work charged employees	30.06.1 990	Referenc es received from various corners requestin g for an extensio n	-do-	On non receipt of option, employee deemed to have retained CPF benefits	3972
4^th	17.09. 1991	All employees	90 days	-do-	-do-	-do-	2741
5^th	27.01. 1993	Work charged, retired and deceased	15.03.1 993	-	-do-	-do-	2749
6^th	08.05. 1995	All employees	31.03.1 996	-	-do-	-do-	4460

¶20

(3 of 5)

¶21

[SAW-1119/2013]

¶22

7^th	22.08. 1995	Retired employees	30.11.1 995	Represen tations received from retired employe es	Pasting on the notice board	-	-
8^th	04.02. 1997	All employees	30.06.1 997	-	-	On non receipt of option, employee deemed to have retained CPF benefits	5076

¶23

29. Two things are quite clear from the narration of facts and the chart. Firstly, that several opportunities were given to the employees of the RSEB (and for prolonged periods) to switch over from the CPF Scheme to the Pension and GPF Regulations. It is stated in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the RSEB that in response to the various notices, out of about 50,000 of its employees, as many as about 46,000 had exercised their option at different points of time to switch over from the CPF Scheme to the Pension and GPF Regulations. Therefore, if some of the employees did not make the switch-over, it may be for reasons personal to them. Secondly, the switch-over option was given to various categories of employees – regular employees, daily rated employees, work charge employees, retired employees and legal representatives of deceased employees. Within these categories were included senior and junior officers, technical and non-technical cadre. In other words, both high ranked and lower ranked staff were included for the purposes of the switch-over option.

¶24

30. Given this factual background, it is prima facie difficult to accept the contention of the respondents that they (about 700 of them and another 3000+ employees that they represent) were not aware of the Pension and GPF Regulations and therefore, they were unable to exercise their option to switch over before its closure by the decision dated 12th March, 1999.

¶25

xxx xxx xxx 70. Insofar as the present appeals are concerned, the respondents who are members of the CPF Scheme were given several opportunities of switching over to the Pension Scheme and the GPF Scheme under the Pension Regulations and the GPF Regulations respectively but they chose not to do so. The question whether under these circumstances pension is a bounty or a charity becomes completely irrelevant. The entitlement to pension was available to the respondents but they chose not to avail the entitlement for reasons personal to them. Having taken a decision in this regard the respondents cannot now raise an argument of

¶26

(4 of 5)

¶27

[SAW-1119/2013]

¶28

pension not being a bounty and therefore requiring the RSEB to give them another option to switch over to the Pension and GPF Regulations.

¶29

71. Under the circumstances, we find no merit in the contentions urged by the respondents and consequently, the appeals of the RSEB deserve to be allowed.”

¶30

In the light of the above development and the declaration of law, so far as the present appellant and its employees are concerned, the impugned order has to be set aside.

¶31

One of the original writ petitioners has preferred an application for being permitted to withdraw the writ petition at this belated stage (after having secured the relief by the impugned order). In this application No.1146/2015, it is contended that the applicant-petitioner had been placed under suspension and was ultimately exonerated and that he had even exercised the option given to him. However, in support of these contentions it is pointed out by the appellant that there are no separate averments and the writ petition originally filed, in respect of which relief was granted was only on the ground that a separate and independent and additional option had to be given.

¶32

Having considered the application and the contentions made in the appeal, this Court is of the opinion that the petitionerapplicant having approached this Court on the basis of a claim of being denied the benefit of an additional option, he cannot now turn around and ask for a relief based on diametrically opposite or inconsistent pleas. These facts were not highlighted and the applicant was afforded relief on the same basis as others were. The application is therefore lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶33

(5 of 5)

¶34

[SAW-1119/2013]

¶35