Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others vs Goverdhan Lal Soni and Anr.

43 of the Regulations, 1989 makes it clear that except those employees who have opted for continuing to CPF, employer’s share shall be transferred to the appellant-Corporation Pension Fund and the employees share with interest shall be transferred to appellant-Corporation GPF Fund – For the employees who were entitled to grant of pension there is mention of only two funds that is pension fund and GPF fund – The employer’s share was to be transferred to Pension Fund and employee’s share shall be transferred to GPF Fund – Further, clause 11(b) of circular dated 02.07.1991 makes it clear that when the respondent was absorbed in appellant-Corporation the balance in CPF Account of the surplus employees would be transferred in GPF Account and the Pension Fund respectively – Since, the Certificate issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner makes it clear that the contribution of employee and employer was transferred to the appellantCorporation – Thus, it was the obligation of the appellantCorporation to credit the amount in Pension fund and GPF fund – Neither Regulations, 1989 nor circular dated 02.07.1991 refers to any capital amount – There was no obligation of erstwhile employer of the respondent to transfer any capital amount – Neither any such capital amount was contemplated by 1989 Regulations or by scheme of absorption dated 02.07.1991 – There was no justifiable ground for the appellant for not sanctioning the claim of Pension of the respondent after his retirement – Therefore, the High Court did not commit any error in allowing the claim of the respondent for pension.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The contention which has been pressed by the counsel for the appellant before this Court is that there was no transfer of capital amount of the erstwhile employer of respondent. The counsel for the appellant has relied and refer to the letter dated 18.09.1998 issued by the Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Limited. This has been brought on record as Annexure-P/1. A perusal of Annexure-P/1 indicates that appellantRajasthan State Road Transport Corporation by letter dated 29.07.1998 requested the Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Limited for transferring capital value amount in regard to the respondent. The erstwhile employer of the respondent informed the appellant that capital value amount in regard to the absorbed employees is not due to the appellantCorporation. The appellant was informed that contribution of Provident Fund amount is deposited in the account of Commissioner, Provident Fund, Government of India which can be got transferred. The question to be answered is as to whether apart from transfer of employee’s contribution and employer’s contribution deposited in the account of Commissioner, Provident Fund, there is any other amount which required to be transferred to the appellant for the purpose of making the respondent eligible for the benefit of pension. Regulation 43 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Pension Regulations, 1989 is the provision of transfer of Pension Fund by Corporation. The Regulation makes it clear that except those employees who have opted for continuing to CPF, employer’s share shall be transferred to the appellantCorporation Pension Fund and the employees share with interest shall be transferred to appellant-Corporation GPF Fund. For the employees who were entitled to grant of pension there is mention of only two Funds that is Pension Fund and GPF Fund. The employer’s share was to be transferred to Pension Fund and employee’s share shall be transferred to GPF Fund. Clause 11 sub-clause (b) of Circular dated 02.07.1991 also refers to only two accounts i.e. GPF Account and Pension Fund. As per clause 11(b) in an Enterprise having pension scheme, the balance in CPF Account of surplus employees would be transferred to absorbing Enterprise for credit to the GPF Account of the employees and the Pension Fund in proportion of employees own subscription and organisation’s contribution respectively. Thus, employee’s contribution shall go to the GPF Account and employer’s proportion should be credited to the Pension Fund. Clause 11(b) makes it clear that when the respondent was absorbed in appellant-Corporation, the balance in CPF Account of the surplus employees would be transferred in GPF Account and the Pension Fund respectively. The certificate issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner which has been filed at Annexure R-8 makes it clear that contribution of employee Rs.92504/- and contribution of employer Rs.101282/- have been transferred to the appellant-Corporation which was the amount credited with Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The entire amount having been transferred to the appellant-Corporation it was the obligation of the appellant-Corporation to credit the aforesaid amount in respect of Pension Fund and GPF Fund. Neither Regulations, 1989 nor Circular dated 02.07.1991 refers to any capital amount. There was no obligation of erstwhile employer of the respondent to transfer any capital amount. Neither any such capital amount was contemplated by 1989 Regulations or by Scheme of absorption dated 02.07.1991. The Circular dated 02.07.1991 is in conformity with the Regulations, 1989 and a reading of Regulation 43 of Regulations 1989 as well as Circular dated 02.07.1991 makes it abundantly clear that for benefit of Pension Scheme what was required to be transferred by the erstwhile employer was the employees contribution which was to get transferred into the GPF Account and the employer’s contribution to be credited in the Pension Fund. Nothing more was required to be done by the respondent or erstwhile employer for fulfilling any condition or statutory requirement with regard to the respondent’s claim of pension. After transfer of the amount aforesaid, the respondent having given option regarding opting the pension scheme, it was statutory obligation of the appellant to credit both the aforesaid amounts and thereafter continues to deposit 10% in the Pension Fund and after retirement calculates the pension accordingly. [Para 38][253-G-H; 254-A-H; 255-A-D]

2. The notification dated 12.02.1997 specially Clause 2(vi) on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the appellant also does not refer to any sum as a capital amount which needs to be transferred to the appellant for making employee eligible for Pension. The circular dated 09.02.1999 filed by the appellant as Annexure-P/2 does refer to capital amount but it relies on notification dated 12.02.1997 specifically on Clause 2(vi). Clause 2(vi) of notification dated 12.02.1997 does not refer to any capital amount. Thus, the statement in Circular dated 09.02.1999 that only upon receipt of capital amount from Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Limited employees were entitled to get benefit of Corporation Pension is unfounded and without any basis. Clause 2(vi) contemplates that those employees who give their option under Employee Pension Scheme, 1989 their deducted Provident Fund Contribution amount of earlier service on receiving back from P.F. Commissioner Office by their employer will be forwarded to Corporation. This Court has already noticed that both employee’s contribution and employer’s contribution which were deposited with Provident Fund Commissioner Office was transferred to Corporation. Thus, what was contemplated by Clause 2(vi) of notification dated 12.02.1997 was complied with. [Para 39][255-E-H]

3. This Court is satisfied that there was no justifiable ground for the appellant for not sanctioning the claim of pension of the respondent after his retirement. [Para 40][256-A]

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala versus Mangal Singh and Others (2011) 11 SCC 702 : [2011]

6 SCR 564 – relied on.

Mahaveer Prasad Jain v. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3116 of 2004); Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its Chairman and Anr. v. Mahaveer Prasad Jain 2008 (2) WLN 337 – referred to.