Mangi Lal vs Union Of India ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3716 Raj

[2023/RJJD/012520]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1133/2019

1. Mangi Lal S/o Bhikam Chand, Aged About 64 Years, Plot No. 47 A, Sardarpura 10 E Road, District - Jodhpur.

2. Amritlal Sharma S/o Shri Ram Kishan, Aged About 61 Years, Plot No. 184, Vidya Nagar, Near Rto Office, Jodhpur.

3. Vishnu Ram Chaudhary S/o Bheru Ram, Aged About 67 Years, Bokara Gali, Tarbatgarh, District Pali.

4. Jhala Ram S/o Ummed Ram, Aged About 63 Years, Gram Dadiya, Post Sehvaj, Marwar Junction, District Pali.

5. Kalyan Singh S/o Kesar Singh, Aged About 75 Years, Post Office - Virami, Village Banar, District Jodhpur.

6. Ram Gopal Sen S/o Gisha Lal, Aged About 65 Years, C/o Murli Manohar Modi, Antarawas, Kilaghati Road, District Jalore, Rajasthan.

7. Dev Raj Vyas S/o Kanhaiy Lal Vyas, Aged About 67 Years, Opposite Mahalaxmi Mandir, Vyas Bhawan, Sojat City, District Pali, Rajasthan.

8. Satya Narayan S/o Basti Ram, Aged About 62 Years, Village Post - Pipliya Kala (Marudahr Keshari Colony), District Pali, Rajasthan.

9. Narayan Singh S/o Jai Singh, Aged About 64 Years, Nimblana, Tehsil Jalore, District Jalore.

10. Gendu Khan S/o Kasam Khan, Aged About 62 Years, Medta City, District Nagaur.

11. Rama Ram Meena S/o Shri Sammaji, Aged About 67 Years, Mu-Jogani, Post Kamba, Tehsil - Ahor, District Jalore.

12. Ramlal S/o Shri Nathuram, Aged About 60 Years, Sevaro Ki Dhani, Khokri, Village- Gotan, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur.

----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

[2023/RJJD/012520] (2 of 6) [CW-1133/2019]

Jodhpur, 130, Paschim Pal Vistar, Yojana, Opp. Shankar Nagar, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) 342008.

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

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

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sukhdev Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ummed Singh Gehlot Mr. Harish Kumar Purohit Mr. Yashpal Khileree

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

27/04/2023

1. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking

direction to the respondents to accord them benefits of

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,

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.

[2023/RJJD/012520] (3 of 6) [CW-1133/2019]

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 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

[2023/RJJD/012520] (4 of 6) [CW-1133/2019]

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

(vi) The employees who have retired before 1st September 2014 upon exercising option under paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme shall be covered by the provisions of the paragraph 11(3)

[2023/RJJD/012520] (5 of 6) [CW-1133/2019]

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) 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

[2023/RJJD/012520] (6 of 6) [CW-1133/2019]

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 petition filed by the petitioners is 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 also stands disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 183-Arvind/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)