Rajasthan High Court
Badri Lal Karan vs State Engergy Depors on 9 December, 2021
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3539/2016
Badri Lal Karan S/o Shri Moti Lal, aged about 66 years, R/o T-6,
Rajasthan Housing Board, Colony, Kota (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through its Principle Secretary, Department
of Energy, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut
Prasarn Nigam Limited, Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
3. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Prasaran Nigam Limited,
Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
4. The Dy. Controller of Accounts (P&F), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut
Prasaran Nigam Limited, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P S Sharma with
Mr. Jitendra Kumar Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lokendra Singh
Mr. Bhagwat Singh Choudhary, Dy.
G.C.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
09/12/2021
The present petition has been filed with a prayer that the
respondents may be directed to allot a GPF account number and
pensionary benefits to the petitioner.
Before proceeding on, it is relevant to mention that the
present petitioner had earlier, for the same relief, preferred a writ
petition before this court which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.10711/2008 which came to be decided on 21.10.2011.
Against the same, D.B. Special Appeal was preferred by
(2 of 3) [CW-3539/2016]
respondents which was decided on 24.08.2012 and the same was
assailed before the Hon'ble Apex Court by the respondents as
Special Leave to Appeal No. 9993/2013. The Special Leave to
Appeal of the respondent-Department vide which bunch of matters
was decided on 07.08.2014 was allowed including Special Leave to
Appeal No. 9993/13 (converted into Civil Appeal No. 7572/2014)
pertaining to the petitioner. The Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding
the bunch of cases in Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam td. Vs.
Dwarka Prasad Koolwal & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7483/2014)
decided on 07.08.2014 held as under:-
"68. The right of an employee to switch over was,
therefore, limited in time by the Pension and GPF
Regulations. However, administrative orders issued
by the RSEB from time to time extended the period
for exercising the option. No employee had any
inherent right to either demand an extension of the
period for exercising the switch-over option or claim
a right to exercise the switch-over option at any
time prior to his retirement, and no such right has
been shown to us.
69. But, learned counsel for the respondents finally
submitted that pension is not a charity or a bounty
and an employee is entitled to earn his pension.
There can be no doubt about this proposition but
when two schemes are available to an employee,
one being the CPF Scheme and the other being the
Pension Scheme, it is for the employee to choose
the scheme that he feels more comfortable with and
appropriate for his purposes. No employee can
switch over back and forth from one scheme to
another as per his convenience. Once an employee
has chosen to be a part of a particular scheme, he
continues to remain a member of that scheme
unless an option to switch over to another scheme is
given to him.
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
(3 of 3) [CW-3539/2016]
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 pension not being
a bounty and therefore requiring the RSEB to give
them another option to switch over to the Pension
and GPF Regulations.
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."
In view of the above mentioned judgment passed by Hon'ble
Apex Court pertaining to petitioner himself wherein the SLP of
respondent-Department has been allowed, the present petition for
the same relief by the petitioner cannot be entertained.
Copy of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in
(Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam td. Vs. Dwarka Prasad
Koolwal & Ors.) as supplied by the counsel for the respondents is
taken on record.
In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed.
(REKHA BORANA),J
ashu /16
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
