Chief Managing Director vs Ramdev
2022 Latest Caselaw 9384 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 406/2020

1. Chief Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur.

2. Joint Managing Director (Finance-Pension), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head Office, Jaipur

3. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Hanumangarh Depot, Distt. Hanumangarh

----Appellants Versus Ramdev S/o Shri Birbal Ram, Aged About 58 Years, By Caste Verma, R/o Hanumangarh Junction, Distt. Hanumangarh.

                                                                     ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :    Dr. Harish Purohit.
For Respondent(s)            :    Mr. Vipin Mankad.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                   Judgment

19/07/2022

By way of present Special Appeal, the appellants are

assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated

02.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Bench whereby the

appellants/respondents were directed to allot the General

Provident Fund (hereinafter referred to as GPF) Account Number

to the respondent/writ petitioner.

Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the

respondent/writ petitioner while working on the post of Conductor

in the appellant/respondent Corporation, Rajasthan State Road

Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as RSRTC) was

removed from services on 03.06.1986. Pursuant to a compromise

between the respondent/writ petitioner and the Executive Director

(2 of 4) [SAW-406/2020]

(Traffic), RSRTC, Jaipur, he was reinstated by the Corporation

w.e.f. 28.04.1998. Upon reinstatement, he was posted at Sikar

Depot and amount towards GPF contribution was deducted from

his salary w.e.f 09.07.1998. The respondent/writ petitioner

requested the Corporation to allot him GPF Account number. In

response to the request, Joint Managing Director (Finance Pension

vide order dated 09.05.2018 informed him that had not been

allotted GPF number, due to non-submission of the option form.

Also, the amount deducted from the salary against GPF Account

has been adjusted in his CPF Account.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation

vehemently argued that the maintenance of GPF Accounts was

governed by the provisions of Rajasthan State Road Transport

Corporation Employees Pension Regulations, 1989 (for short 'the

Pension Regulations, 1989' hereinafter). The Pension Regulations,

1989 require the employee to submit option, if he wishes to avail

the benefits of GPF Account. He further submitted that since, the

respondent/writ petitioner had never submitted option for GPF

Account in accordance with the Regulations of 1989, he was not

allotted the GPF number by the Corporation. It was also

contended that the Corporation upon realizing the inadvertent

mistake, directed transfer of amount wrongly deducted towards

GPF contribution to the CPF Account No. 7105 of the

respondent/writ petitioner vide order dated 04.01.2018. It was

reiterated by the learned counsel that the GPF Scheme is

regulated by the Pension Regulations, 1989, which mandates the

employees to submit option in prescribed form/format.

(3 of 4) [SAW-406/2020]

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent/writ petitioner submitted that the act of deduction of

amount towards GPF contribution from the salary of the

respondent/writ petitioner w.e.f. 09.07.1998 entitles him to the

benefit of GPF. It was further argued that the denial of allotment

of GPF Account number as per the Pension Regulations of 1989 is

ex facie illegal. On these submissions, learned counsel Shri

Mankad urged that the direction given by the learned Single Bench

to provide particulars of GPF Account to respondent/writ petitioner

deserves to be affirmed by the Division Bench.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

The GPF account under RSRTC is governed in accordance

with the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees

Pension Regulations, 1989 which came into force on 01.04.1989.

The employees as on 01.04.1989, became entitled to submit

option in the prescribed proforma, either to continue as a member

of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) or for pensionary benefit

alongwith General Provident Fund (GPF). The respondent/writ

petitioner did not submit the option in the prescribed proforma

under the Pension Regulation of 1989 to the

appellants/respondents. The amount of GPF deducted from the

salary of the respondent/writ petitioner stood transferred to CPF

Account Number 7105. In view of the aforesaid, the direction

issued by the learned Single Bench to provide particulars of GPF

Account to the respondent/writ petitioner is not tenable in the

eyes of law and is therefore, reversed.

(4 of 4) [SAW-406/2020]

The writ petition is remanded back to the learned Single

Bench for adjudication on merits. The Registry is directed to place

the matter before learned Single Bench within a period of four

weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

No order as to costs.

                                   (KULDEEP MATHUR),J                                     (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
                                    80-Prashant/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)