Jor Singh vs Union Of India ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3631 Raj

[2023/RJJD/012049]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 609/2019

1. Bhanwar Lal Suthar S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 64 Years, By Caste Suthar, Resident Of Plot No. 3-B, Ajuja Colony, Near Airforce Officers Mess, Ratanada, Jodhpur.

2. Gumana Ram S/o Shri Salag Ram, Aged About 62 Years, By Caste - Choudhary, R/o Street No. 3, Gandhi Nagar, Barmer. (Rajasthan)

----Petitioners Versus

1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Epfo, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

2. The Assistant P.f. Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Jodhpur.

3. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (R.s.r.t.c.), Through Its Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Head Office, Jaipur.

4. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (R.s.r.t.c.) Jodhpur Depot, Jodhpur.

5. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (R.s.r.t.c.) Barmer Depot, Barmer.

----Respondents Connected With (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14871/2019

1. Jor Singh S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 155, Hanuwant A Gali No. 5, Bjs Colony, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)

2. Kewal Ram Solanki S/o Shri Gudad Ram,, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Village Post - Bhadwha Ki Dhani, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

3. Manohar Singh Charan S/o Shri Hari Singh,, Aged About 61 Years, House No. 72A, Rishikesh Nagar, Post - Magara Punjala, Nagour By Pass Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

4. Kumbha Ram S/o Shri Prema Ram,, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Opposite Police Chowki, Saran Nagar, C - Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

5. Dhan Raj Sharma S/o Shri Paras Mal,, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of Ramdeo School, District - Jalor (Rajasthan)

6. Mota Ram Choudhary S/o Shri Tulsi Ram,, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of House No. 35, Sushil Nagar, Gali No. 02, Bhagat Ki Kothi, District - Jodhpur (Rajasthan)

7. Naga Ram S/o Shri Magaram,, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Village Post Office - Bhomsagar, Tehsil - Sheogarh, District- Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

[2023/RJJD/012049] (2 of 9) [CW-609/2019]

8. Ghisa Ram S/o Shri Chaturbhuj,, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Rajiv Gandhi Colony, Police Line, Main Gate, Gali No. 02, District - Pali (Rajasthan)

9. Moti Singh Rajpurohit S/o Shri Devi Singh,, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Behind Bus Stand Desuri, Desuri, District - Pali (Rajasthan).

10. Rani Dan Singh Charan S/o Shri Jasu Dan,, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of Village And Post- Kalau, Tehsil- Shergarh, District- Jodhpur.

11. Ganesha Ram S/o Shri Lunaram,, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of 51 - A Sector, Shankar Nagar, Chopasani, Jodhpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary To The Government Of India, Ministry Of Labor And Employment, Department Of Employment, New Delhi 110001.

2. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office Jodhpur, 130, Paschim Pal Vistar, Yojana, Opp. Shankar Nagar, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) 342008

3. Rajasthan State Road Transprot Corporation, Through General Manager Parivahan Marg, Choumu House, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

4. Deputy General Manager (Pay And Pension), Rsrtc Parivahan Marg, Choumu House, Jaipur.

----Respondents (3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15839/2018

1. Suresh Upadhyay S/o Shri Manak Lal, Aged About 67 Years, 4 B 3Rd Gali, Ram Bag Kaga Dandi, Mahamandir, Jodhpur - Rajasthan

2. Hari Singh Charan S/o Nain Dan, Aged About 61 Years, Behind Rto, Plot No. 13, Vishnu Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 342007

3. Khiya Ram Bishnoi S/o Shri Joraram, Aged About 62 Years, Village Post Office Bhalu Rajwan, Tehsil - Balesar, Jodhpur - Rajasthan

4. Chattar Singh S/o Shri Durga Ram, Aged About 64 Years, Vidhya Nagar Paota C Road, Behind Rto Plot 145, Jodhpur - Rajasthan

5. Ghanshyam Singh Rawal S/o Shri Shaitan Snigh, Aged About 61 Years, Sant Dham Road, Guro Ka Talab, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur - Rajasthan

6. Prahlad Singh S/o Shri Narayan Singh, Aged About 64 Years, Village - Khsiya, Tehsil - Raipur, District - Pali, Rajasthan

7. Gajendra Singh Choudhary S/o Shri Narayan Singh,

[2023/RJJD/012049] (3 of 9) [CW-609/2019]

Aged About 63 Years, Aashapurna Nagar, Pal By Pass, Opposite - Dps, Jodhpur - Rajasthan

8. Banne Dan S/o Shri Sohan Dan, Aged About 64 Years, Chopasani Charanan, Post - Rampura Bhatiya, Tehsil - Osion, Jodhpur - Rajasthan

9. Bhom Singh S/o Shri Hanwant Singh, Aged About 68 Years, Village Post Office - Bhakrod, Tehsil And Distt. Nagaur, Rajasthan

10. Hanuman Prasad S/o Shri Radha Kirshan, Aged About 62 Years, D- 140, Kirti Nagar, Magra Punjala, Jodhpur - Rajasthan

11. Swatantra Kumar S/o Shri Sundar Lal, Aged About 63 Years, 02/05, Pcg Complex, Nagori Gate, Jodhpur - Rajasthan

12. Bhanwar Singh Jhakad S/o Shri Mohan Singh, Aged About 63 Years, 519, Sarwati Nagar, Sector C, Basni Krashi Mandi, New Pali Road, Jodhpur - Rajasthan

13. Ganpat Lal Aacharya S/o Shri Banna Ram, Aged About 66 Years, Plot No. 366, Kanheya Nagar, Shikargarh, Mani Market, Jodhpur - Rajasthan

14. Hapu Ram S/o Shri Keraram, Aged About 62 Years, Dhangali Devi, Sarno Ki Pole, Mu Post - Bhavi, Tehsil - Bilara, Jodhpur - Rajasthan

15. Poona Ram Vishnoi S/o Shri Goverdhanram, Aged About 63 Years, Plot No. 52 Veer Teja Colony, Bhdasiya Road, Mahamandir, Jodhpur - Rajasthan

16. Kumbha Ram S/o Shri Lumbha Ram, Aged About 63 Years, Krishna Colony, Silari Road, Pipar Sahar, Jodhpur

- Rajasthan

17. Abdul Aleem S/o Shri A. Jalil, Aged About 67 Years, Sector - G, Plot No. 164, Gali No. 12, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur - Rajasthan

18. Pabu Ram Vishnoi S/o Shri Ramu Ram, Aged About 62 Years, Village And Post Feetch, Tehsil - Luni, Jodhpur - Rajasthan

19. Basant Dave S/o Shri Bhagwati Lal, Aged About 61 Years, 28/b Pal Road, Ravi Nagar, Nandan Van, Jodhpur

- Rajasthan

----Petitioners Versus

1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary To The Government Of India, Ministry Of Labor And Employment, Department Of Employment, New Delhi 110001

2. Central Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension) Employees Fund Organization, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 14 - Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066

[2023/RJJD/012049] (4 of 9) [CW-609/2019]

3. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Grade I (Pension), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 14 - Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066

4. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Nidhi Bhawan, Vidyut Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur

5. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office Jodhpur, 130, Paschim Pal Vistar, Yojana, Opp. Shankar Nagar, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) 342008

6. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Through Managing Director

7. Deputy General Manager (Pay And Pension), Rsrtc Parivahan Marg, Choumu House, Jaipur

8. Chief Manager, Rsrtc, Jodhpur Depot, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)

----Respondents

(4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12357/2018

1. Puroshottam Das Purohit S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 68 Years, By Caste- Brahmin, 31, Subhash Nagar, Pal Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)

2. Hanuman Lal Jangid S/o Shri Hapuram, Aged About 60 Years, Village- Kheda Ramgarh, Post- Kushalpura, Tehsil- Jaitaran, District- Pali (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Epfo, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur

2. The Assistant P.f. Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Jodhpur

3. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (R.s.r.t.c.) Parivahan Marg, Jaipur

4. Financial Advisor, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (R.s.r.t.c.) Jaipur

5. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (R.s.r.t.c.) Jodhpur Depot, Jodhpur

6. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (R.s.r.t.c.) Barmer Depot, Barmer

----Respondents

(5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17477/2018

1. Amra Ram S/o Amba Ram, Aged About 63 Years, B/c Prajapat, R/o Village- Mungeria, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer.

[2023/RJJD/012049] (5 of 9) [CW-609/2019]

2. Rajaram Rankawat S/o Shri Udaram, Aged About 65 Years, Ward No. 28 Behind Soni Building Nehru Nagar, Barmer.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Epfo, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

2. The Assistant P.f. Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Jodhpur.

3. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (R.s.r.t.c.), Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.

4. Financial Advisor, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (R.s.r.t.c.), Jaipur.

5. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (R.s.r.t.c.), Barmer Depot, Barmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Singh Rajpurohit Mr. Sukhdev Sharma Mr. Vishal Thakur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ummed Singh Gehlot Mr. Shashank Sharma for Mr. Harish Kumar Purohit

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

26/04/2023

1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners

seeking direction to the respondents to accord them benefits of

pension/family pension, pursuant to the Employee's Pension

Scheme, 1995.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

respondents be directed to accord benefits to the petitioners in

light of order in R.C. Gupta & Ors. Vs. Regional Provident

Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund

Organisation & Ors.:2018 (4) SCC 809 and other judgments,

[2023/RJJD/012049] (6 of 9) [CW-609/2019]

which have followed the said judgment including a judgment of

this Court.

3. The issues, which have been raised by the petitioners all

stand concluded by Larger Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Employee Provident Fund Organization & Ors. Vs.

Sunil Kumar B. & Ors.: 2022 SCC Online SC 1521.

4. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

directed as under:-

"46. We accordingly hold and direct:

(i) The provisions contained in the notification no. G.S.R.609(E) dated 22nd August 2014 are legal and valid. So far as present members of the fund are concerned, we have read down certain provisions of the scheme as applicable in their cases and we shall give our findings and directions on these provisions in the subsequent subparagraphs.

(ii) Amendment to the pension scheme brought about by the notification no. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22nd August 2014 shall apply to the employees of the exempted establishments in the same manner as the employees of the regular establishments. Transfer of funds from the exempted establishments shall be in the manner as we have already directed.

(iii) The employees who had exercised option under the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme and continued to be in service as on 1st September 2014, will be guided by the amended provisions of paragraph 11(4)of the pension scheme.

(iv) The members of the scheme, who did not exercise option, as contemplated in the proviso to

[2023/RJJD/012049] (7 of 9) [CW-609/2019]

paragraph 11(3)of the pension scheme (as it was before the 2014Amendment) would be entitled to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the post amendment scheme. Their right to exercise option before 1st September 2014 stands crystalised in the judgment of this Court in the case of R.C.Gupta (supra). The scheme as it stood before 1stSeptember 2014 did not provide for any cutoff date and thus those members shall be entitled to exercise option in terms of paragraph 11(4) of the scheme, as it stands at present. Their exercise of option shall be in the nature of joint options covering pre- amended paragraph 11(3) as also the amended paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme.

There was uncertainty as regards validity of the post amendment scheme, which was quashed by the aforesaid judgments of the three High Courts. Thus, all the employees who did not exercise option but were entitled to do so but could not due to the interpretation on cut-off date by the authorities, ought to be given a further chance to exercise their option. Time to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the scheme, under these circumstances, shall stand extended by a further period of four months. We are giving this direction in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142of the Constitution of India.

Rest of the requirements as per the amended provision shall be complied with.

(v) The employees who had retired prior to 1st September2014 without exercising any option under paragraph 11(3)of the pre- amendment scheme have already exited from the membership

[2023/RJJD/012049] (8 of 9) [CW-609/2019]

thereof. They would not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment.

(vi) The employees who have retired before 1st September2014 upon exercising option under paragraph 11(3) of the1995 scheme shall be covered by the provisions of the paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme as it stood prior to the amendment of 2014.

(vii) The requirement of the members to contribute at the rate of 1.16 per cent of their salary to the extent such salary exceeds Rs.15000/- per month as an additional contribution under the amended scheme is held to be ultravires the provisions of the 1952 Act. But for the reasons already explained above, we suspend operation of this part of our order for a period of six months. We do so to enable the authorities to make adjustments in the scheme so that the additional contribution can be generated from some other legitimate source within the scope of the Act, which could include enhancing the rate of contribution of the employers. We are not speculating on what steps the authorities will take as it would be for the legislature or the framers of the scheme to make necessary amendment. For the aforesaid period of six months or till such time any amendment is made, whichever is earlier, the employees' contribution shall be as stop gap measure.

The said sum shall be adjustable on the basis of alteration to the scheme that may be made.

(viii) We do not find any flaw in altering the basis for computation of pensionable salary.

(ix) We agree with the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of R.C. Gupta (supra)

[2023/RJJD/012049] (9 of 9) [CW-609/2019]

so far as interpretation of the proviso to paragraph 11(3) (pre- amendment) pension scheme is concerned. The fund authorities shall implement the directives contained in the said judgment within a period of eight weeks, subject to our directions contained earlier in this paragraph.

(x) The Contempt Petition (C) Nos.1917-1918 of 2018 and Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 619-620 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos. 10013-0014 of 2016 are disposed of in the above terms. 47. All the appeals which we have heard simultaneously are allowed in the above terms and the judgments impugned are modified accordingly. The writ petitions brought by employees or their representatives shall also stand disposed of in the same terms."

5. The present writ petitions filed by the petitioners are

disposed of in light of the directions given by Hon'ble Supreme

Court. Both the parties shall abide by the directions of Hon'ble

Supreme Court, as noticed hereinabove.

6. The stay petition(s) also stand disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 33, 40-41, 133, 138-pooja/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)