Mohan Singh vs Union Of India ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4381 Raj

[2023/RJJD/014610]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1184/2019

1. Mohan Singh S/o Shri Chhotu Singh, Aged About 62 Years, Plot No. 503, New BJS Colony, Jodhpur-Rajasthan.

2. Dinesh Chandra Boda S/o Madan Lal, Aged About 63 Years, Jalap Mohalla, Near Nihariya Mosque, Jodhpur, Rajathan, 342007

3. Gheesu Khan S/o Shri Gulab Khan, Aged About 69 Years, Sumerpur, Pali - Rajasthan.

4. Mangi Lal S/o Shri Manna Ji, Aged About 67 Years, Gura Reliya, Post Chunda, Tehsil Ahore, Jalore - Rajasthan.

5. Chunni Lal S/o Shri Virma Ji, Aged About 68 Years, Ghanchiyo Ki Pilani Krishna Mandir, Jalore- Rajasthan.

6. Kuia Ram S/o Shri Jalam Ji, Aged About 68 Years, Opposite Daak Bangla, Post Ahore, Jalore - Rajasthan.

7. Muktyar Khan S/o Shri Jamal Khan, Aged About 64 Years, Sardar Patel Marg, Inside Tilak Dwar, Jalore - Rajasthan.

8. Bhanwar Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh Bhati, Aged About 66 Years, Village Gujravas, Post Malkosni, Bilara, Jodhpur - Rajasthan.

9. Dalpat Singh S/o Shri Vijay Singh, Aged About 68 Years, 212, Mohan - B, Bjs, Jodhpur - Rajasthan.

10. Mohd. Hanif Chhipa S/o Shri Gabru Khan, Aged About 62 Years, Gadi Wala Hindu Chhioa Ka Mohalla, Pipar City, Jodhpur.

11. Shankar Singh S/o Shri Dungar Singh, Aged About 62 Years, Gali No. 6, Shiv Shakti Nagar, Mahamandir, Jodhpur.

12. Narpat Singh Jodhana S/o Shri Rewat Singh, Aged About 64 Years, Village / Post Chhapara, Tehsil - Nayal, Nagaur.

13. Manohar Lal Deora S/o Shri Mishri Lal, Aged About 64 Years, Inside Jalore Gate, Opposite Shri Bal Vidhya Bhawan, Jodhpur.

14. Parmeshwar Lal S/o Shri Amba Lal, Aged About 67 Years, H.no. 9, Naiyo Ki Baghichi, Chopasani, H.b., Jodhpur.

15. Kan Singh S/o Shri Chothudan, Aged About 62 Years, House No. 37/38, Tagore Nagar, Pali.

16. Mool Singh Rathore S/o Shri Ganga Singh, Aged About 68

[2023/RJJD/014610] (2 of 9) [CW-1184/2019]

Years, Village Dev, Thesil Khivsar, Nagaur.

17. Narendra Singh S/o Shri Mohan Singh, Aged About 62 Years, Plot No. 37, Gali No. 12, New Bjs Colony, Jodhpur.

18. Shiv Charan S/o Shri Phool Chand, Aged About 64 Years, Village/post- Korer, Tehsil- Dengh, Distt. Bharatpur.

19. Jabar Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Suraj Singh Chouhan, Aged About 62 Years, Rebariyo Ka Bass, Mataji Ka Than Ke Samne, District Jalore (Raj).

20. Ram Chandra Khichi S/o Shri Madho Singh, Aged About 63 Years, House No 502, Mohan Nagar, B Bjs Colony, Jodhpur.

21. Banshi Lal S/o Shri Nenu Das, Aged About 66 Years, Village And Post Jaitaran , Tripoliyo Ka Bass, Tehsil - Jaitaran, Pali.

22. Sumer Chand Mathur S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 62 Years, J-103, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur.

23. Madho Singh Goad S/o Shri Narayan, Aged About 67 Years, 18, Shanti Nagar, Bhadwasiya, Jodhpur.

24. Bhagwat Singh S/o Shri Bheru Singh, Aged About 62 Years, Plot No. 156, Ajit Colony, Jodhpur.

25. Madan Lal S/o Shri Gurad Ram, Aged About 64 Years, Vparla Bass, Vpo Bhavi, Bilara, Jodhpur.

26. Narendra Singh S/o Shri Dalpat Singh, Aged About 64 Years, Village - Kakani, Tehsil, Luni, Jodhpur.

27. Onar Singh S/o Shri Jethu Singh, Aged About 62 Years, 422, Mohan Nagar , Bjs Colony, Jodhpur.

28. Jai Mahesh Sharma S/o Shri Bansari Das, Aged About 63 Years, Laxman Nagar, Ramjanji Ka Hatha, Banar, Jodhpur.

29. Kishan Singh S/o Shri Ratan Singh, Aged About 62 Years, Village- Narasana, Post Bishangarh, Jalore.

30. Babu Singh Sisodia S/o Shri Hazari Singh, Aged About 66 Years, Nizam Road, Tehsil Jaitaran, Pali.

31. Jai Singh S/o Kishan Singh, Aged About 63 Years, Village-

Letariya, Tehsil - Jaitaran, Pali.

32. Mumtaz Khan S/o Shri Rahim Busa, Aged About 72 Years, Sipayiyo Ka Bass, Tehsil - Jaitaran, Pali.

[2023/RJJD/014610] (3 of 9) [CW-1184/2019]

33. Prem Singh S/o Shri Chagan Singh, Aged About 70 Years, Gyananad Colony, Suthala, Jodhpur.

34. Bhagwan Das Vaishnav S/o Shri Mangal Das, Aged About 65 Years, Shyam Ji Ka Mandir, Village Nimaj, Tehsil Jaitaran, Pali.

35. Sohan Lal Prajapat S/o Shri Khumaram Prajapat, Aged About 69 Years, Kumharo Ka Bass, Akaswani, Paota, C Road, Jodhpur.

36. Nathu Singh S/o Shri Bahadur Singh, Aged About 62 Years, Garden Flat No. 3, Behind Kabra School, Paota A Road, Jodhpur.

37. Suresh Chand Joshi S/o Shri Bajranglal Joshi, Aged About 64 Years, Behind Sri Ram Hospital, Banar Road, Jodhpur.

38. Sangh Singh S/o Shri Bhur Singh, Aged About 62 Years, Khirja Khas, Tehsil Sergarh, Jodhpur.

39. Mangi Lal S/o Shri Kishan, Aged About 67 Years, Village / Post Hungao, Tehsil Bilara, Jodhpur.

40. Jagdish Borana S/o Shri Chaturbhujh, Aged About 67 Years, Koran House, Inside Jalori Gate, Gwara Niwas, Jodhpur.

41. Radheshyam Arora S/o Shri Swaroop Chand, Aged About 68 Years, Plot No. 389, Ist C Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

42. Om Prakash Dadhich S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal, Aged About 62 Years, Mu. Post - Kodana, Via Pipar City, Jodhpur.

43. Ummed Singh Bhati S/o Shri Hari Singh Bhati, Aged About 64 Years, 4-C, Ajit Colony, Ratanada, Jodhpur.

44. Govind Kishan Vyas S/o Shri Bhanmal, Aged About 68 Years, G-35, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur.

45. Fateh Ram Choudhary S/o Shri Mangala Ram, Aged About 62 Years, Vpo Khariya Khangar, Via- Pipar Road, Jodhpur.

46. Dalpat Singh S/o Shri Narayan Singh, Aged About 62 Years, Plot No. 102, Laxman Nagar B, Goushala Road, Nandari, Jodhpur.

47. Goparam S/o Shri Urja Ram, Aged About 66 Years, Village/post- Balesar, Jodhpur.

48. Magraj S/o Shri Harigaram, Aged About 65 Years, Dhadhriya Bhayala, Dev Nagar, Vaya Tehsil Sergarh, Jodhpur.

[2023/RJJD/014610] (4 of 9) [CW-1184/2019]

49. Narpat Singh Charan S/o Shri Raghunath Singh, Aged About 61 Years, House No. 203, Gali No. 5, Chain Singh Marg, Bjs Colony, Jodhpur.

50. Jawahar Borana S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 62 Years, Devnarayan Temple, Bhagat Ki Khoti, Pali Raod, Jodhpur.

51. Baksaram Choudhary S/o Shri Haridan Ram, Aged About 64 Years, Jodhpur Depot, Rsrtc, Jodhpur.

52. Bhanwar Singh Bhati S/o Shri Kishore Singh, Aged About 65 Years, Devaniya, Post Chamu, Via Tiwari, Jodhpur.

53. Mohammad Arif S/o Shri Mohd. Indris, Aged About 63 Years, Sire Mandir Road, Jalore (Rajasthan).

54. Bhawani Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, Aged About 63 Years, Dharam Narayan Ji Ka Hatha, Paota, Jodhpur.

55. Bhanwar Singh Bhati S/o Shri Gulab Singh, Aged About 64 Years, Village And Post Anup Pura, Tehsil Sumerpur, Pali.

56. Goverdhan Singh S/o Shri Pabu Ram, Aged About 67 Years, Village And Post Cherai, Tehsil Osian, Jodhpur.

57. Vishan Singh S/o Shri Khem Singh, Aged About 66 Years, Mukan Aadwara, Post Siwana, Jalore.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Union Of India, Through Its 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.

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)

[2023/RJJD/014610] (5 of 9) [CW-1184/2019]

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

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

8. Chief Manager, RSRTC, Jodhpur Depot, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sukhdev Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harish Purohit Mr. Yash Pal Khileree

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

10/05/2023

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/014610] (6 of 9) [CW-1184/2019]

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

[2023/RJJD/014610] (7 of 9) [CW-1184/2019]

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 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

[2023/RJJD/014610] (8 of 9) [CW-1184/2019]

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) 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

[2023/RJJD/014610] (9 of 9) [CW-1184/2019]

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 petition filed by the petitioners is disposed

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

case of Employee Provident Fund Organization (supra). 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 139-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)