Rajasthan High Court
The Senior Accounts Officer (Pension) vs Pushpkant Chouhan S/O Sh. Purushottam ... on 25 January, 2024
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Shubha Mehta
[2024:RJ-JP:4388-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 964/2023
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13719/2015
The Senior Accounts Officer (Pension), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut
Prasaran Nigam Limited (Rrvpnl), Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath Road,
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Pushpkant Chouhan S/o Sh. Purushottam Chouhan, R/o
T-204, Shrinand City-2, Besides Baroda Express Highway,
Near Mani Nagar, Ctm, Ahmadabad (Gujarat).
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Energy, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Through Its
Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Panchsheel Nagar,
Makadwali Road, Ajmer.
4. Secretary (Administration), Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam
Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Panchsheel Nagar, Makadwali
Road, Ajmer.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 961/2023
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13719/2015
1. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Through Its Managing
Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Panchsheel Nagar, Makadwali
Road, Ajmer.
2. The Secretary Administration, Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran
Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Panchsheel Nagar,
Makadwali Road, Ajmer.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Pushpkant Chouhan S/o Purshottam Chouhan, R/o T-204,
Shrinand City-2, Beside Baroda Express High Way, Near
Maninagar, Ctm Ahmedabad, Gujarat.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
[2024:RJ-JP:4388-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-964/2023]
Department Of Energy, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. L.L. Gupta Advocate &
Mr. Abhishek Sharma Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Punit Singhvi Advocate with Mr.
Ayush Singh Advocate.
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA
Judgment
25/01/2024
1. Heard.
2. Both the appeals, filed by two different respondents in the
writ petition, feeling aggrieved by order dated 15.05.2023 passed
by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the
respondent-employee, are being decided by this common order.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the decision
rendered by the learned Single Judge that belated submissions of
option without protest beyond the cut-off date, was required to be
accepted, relying upon the decision in the case of Mahesh Chand
Agarwal Versus The Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd. & Another, S.B. Civil Writ Petition
no.13401/2008, decided on 03.01.2017 is misplaced both on
facts and law.
Learned counsel for the appellants argued that though option
form was submitted by the respondent-employee within the
prescribed time limit, i.e., before 30.06.1997, the option form was
defective as it was submitted "under protest". Therefore, the same
was returned and after return, the revised and proper option form
was submitted on 27.03.1999, which was beyond the prescribed
[2024:RJ-JP:4388-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-964/2023]
period, i.e., 30.06.1997, therefore, the same was rightly not
accepted by the appellants. It is further submitted that merely
because under an incorrect mention of facts, GPF was being
deducted, the writ petitioner was not entitled to any relief that he
should be treated as having validly submitted an option for
pension scheme. It is also submitted that the appellants have
adopted uniform policy and, therefore, where the option form is
not proper and submission/re-submission of proper option form is
beyond the stipulated date, the respondent-employee is not
entitled to claim pension as option under the scheme of the
applicable rules. In support of his submission, learned counsel has
placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Versus
Dwarka Prasad Koolwal & Others, AIR 2014 Supreme Court
3655.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on
advance copy, would submit that the option form was submitted
well within the stipulated period and minor irregularity of it being
"under protest" could be rectified had it been informed to the
respondent-employee before the last date of submission, i.e.,
30.06.1997. The submission of the option form was on
30.03.1996. The internal correspondences made between the
various authorities clearly shows that immediate senior authorities
of the writ petitioner were engaged in internal correspondences
with the accounts department supporting the case of the writ
petitioner. All these factors justified the action of the writ
petitioner. The writ petitioner continued in service, GPF amount
was continuously being deducted and finally he retired in 2014.
[2024:RJ-JP:4388-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-964/2023]
5. We have considered submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused records.
6. It is not in dispute that the respondent-employee had
submitted an option form on 30.03.1996 that he is willing to
switch over to pension scheme. True it is that there was a
stipulation that it is "under protest". If at all, the authorities were
not inclined to accept the same, nothing prevented them to direct
the writ petitioner to submit a revised option form on or before
30.06.1997. There is no communication placed on record by the
appellants that any order was passed rejecting earlier option form
and directing the writ petitioner to submit revised option form
removing the word "under protest" on or before 30.06.1997.
7. We have gone through the record of the case, which reveals
that there were several correspondences going on between the
administrative higher authorities of the writ petitioner and the
higher authorities of the accounts department. In this manner, the
matter remained pending. Finally a revised option form was
submitted by the petitioner on 27.03.1999. Letter dated
21.06.1999 placed on record also shows that it is the Executive
Engineer (MT) RSEB, Udaipur who sent GPF allotment number of
the petitioner to the accounts department.
8. It is not a case where no option form was at all submitted.
The option form was submitted, but it was "under protest". That
was merely an irregularity. The appellants'-authorities were,
therefore, obliged to immediately inform in writing to the
respondent-employee to submit revise option form. The internal
communication shows that the immediate higher authorities of the
writ petitioner were sending letters to be communicated to the
[2024:RJ-JP:4388-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-964/2023]
accounts department and other authorities that submission of
option form "under protest" is merely an irregularity that may be
removed and the option may be accepted.
9. We are of the view that in such circumstance where revised
option form was submitted and no order was passed that the
revised option form is rejected, GPF continued to be deducted and
the respondent-employee finally retired, the respondent-employee
cannot be penalized for irregularity. The decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Versus Dwarka Prasad Koolwal & Others (Supra) related to a
case where no option form was at all submitted within a stipulated
period. That was not a case dealing with defective option form.
10. In the result, we are not inclined to interfere with the order
of the learned Single Judge, therefore, the two appeals are
dismissed.
11. A copy of this order be placed on record of connected appeal.
(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ
SANJAY KUMAWAT-2-3
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
