Dismissed¶27

The Chairman and Managing Director v. Chaturbhuj Jangid S/O Shri Jagannath Jangid

Rajasthan HC16 Oct 2025SAW/841/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench; D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 841/2025; decided 16/10/2025 by Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Mr. Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu; RSRTC officials v. Chaturbhuj Jangid (Conductor, Bundi Depot); GPF Pension Rules, 1989 option exercise; notification dated 15.06.1996; termination 30.03.1996; reinstatement/settlement; rejoining 2014; belated option; appeal dismissed; question of law left open.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the appeal was dismissed and the learned Single Judge's direction (issuance of the option form under the GPF Pension Rules, 1989 and grant of GPF benefits if the respondent-workman is entitled) was upheld as correctly protecting the respondent's entitlement. ¶27

The Chairman and Managing Director Vs Chaturbhuj Jangid S/O Shri Jagannath Jangid — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent, who was under termination on 15.06.1996 when the notification for opting into the GPF Pension Rules, 1989 was issued and who exercised his option only after rejoining in 2014, could validly make the option despite the lapse of the deadline for exercising it.

¶20

Court's answer

The respondent, not being in service on 15.06.1996 due to his termination, could not have exercised the option at that time; upon reinstatement in 2014 he promptly exercised the option, and the learned Single Judge rightly protected his entitlement.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

No grounds for interference are made out in this appeal against the learned Single Judge's order.

¶26

Key takeaways

The question of law arising in the matter shall remain open.obiter¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench appeal against the learned Single Judge's order dated 28.04.2025, which directed the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation to issue an option form to the respondent-workman (a Conductor terminated on 30.03.1996 following inquiry and reinstated in 2014 through a settlement before the learned Single Judge) in accordance with the GPF Pension Rules, 1989, and to grant GPF benefits if found entitled. The appellants contended that the notification for opting into the GPF Pension Rules, 1989 was issued on 15.06.1996 while the respondent was under termination, and his option exercised only in 2014 was belated as the deadline had lapsed. Held: the respondent, being out of service on 15.06.1996 due to his termination, could not have exercised the option at that time; he exercised it promptly upon reinstatement in 2014, and the learned Single Judge rightly protected his entitlement. No grounds for interference were made out; the appeal was dismissed, with the question of law expressly left open.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:42344-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 841/2025

¶4

The Chairman And Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Hqrs. Chomu House, Jaipur

¶5

The Executive Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Hqrs Chomu House Jaipur

¶6

The Financial Advisor, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Hqrs Chomu House Jaipur

¶7

The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Baran.

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Chaturbhuj Jangid S/o Shri Jagannath Jangid, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Village Itawa, Post Joula, Distt. Sawaimadhopur. Presently Working As Conductor At Bundi Depot

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kapil Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kunal Rawat with Ms. Dhriti Sharma

¶13

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order

¶14

16/10/2025

¶15

By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the appellantcorporation to issue an option form to the respondent (writ petitioner) in accordance with the GPF Pension Rules, 1989 and if the respondent-workman is entitled to the benefits of the GPF, the same shall be granted.

¶16

[2025:RJ-JP:42344-DB]

¶17

[SAW-841/2025]

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

The short point involved is that the respondent (writ petitioner) was appointed as a Conductor in 1980 and remained in service until his termination on 30.03.1996 following an inquiry. The respondent contested the termination and successfully obtained reinstatement through a settlement before the learned Single Judge, on the condition that he would not claim back wages upto the date of rejoining. However, the respondent was entitled to notional benefits of pay fixation if he was on a regular pay scale, but not if he was a daily-wage employee, along with continuity of service. Upon rejoining, the respondent opted for the GPF scheme as per the GPF Pension Rules, 1989.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that when the notification for opting into the GPF Pension Rules, 1989 was issued on 15.06.1996, the respondent was under termination and only exercised his option after rejoining in 2014. He contends that this belated option should not have been permitted, as the deadline for exercising the option had lapsed, and granting it retrospectively would contravene the scheme for extending such benefits to employees. He further contends that earlier notifications were issued during the respondent’s service, and since he did not exercise the option then, he would not be entitled for making such option at this juncture.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the respondent’s right to opt for the GPF was alive on 15.06.1996 when the last notification was issued. The respondent was unable to exercise this right as he was not in service at that time due to his termination. The learned Single Judge has rightly protected the rights of respondent by granting him the benefit of the notification

¶22

[2025:RJ-JP:42344-DB]

¶23

[SAW-841/2025]

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

dated 15.06.1996, as he rejoined service in 2014 pursuant to the settlement.

¶26

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case, this Court finds that the respondent, who was not in service on 15.06.1996 due to his termination, could not have exercised the option at that time. Upon reinstatement in 2014, he promptly exercised the option, and the learned Single Judge has rightly protected his entitlement. Thus, no grounds for interference are made out in this appeal. However, the question of law shall remain open.

¶27

In view of above, the present appeal is dismissed.

¶28

(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J

¶29

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶30

Sudheer / 13

The Chairman and Managing Director v. Chaturbhuj Jangid S/O Shri Jagannath Jangid

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chairman and Managing Director v. Chaturbhuj Jangid S/O Shri Jagannath Jangid

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Executive Engineer, Phed Vs Sachdeva Metal Works

Executive Engineer, Phed Division Vs Sachdeva Metal Works

Dr. Bharat Sapra S/O Late Shri Bhajan Das Sapra Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Padam Chand Jain S/O Sh. Kapoor Chand Jain Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Anil Prakash Arya S/O Govardhan Das Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Manoj Mathur So Late Sh L. N. Mathur Vs State of Rajasthan