Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court Notice inviting option need not be personally served to employees unless Regulation or any instruction so provides MANU/SC/0012/2017 - (03 Jan 2017) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v. Amandeep Singh and Ors.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">Instant appeal has been filed by PEPSU Road Transport Corporation. Appellate Court took the view that, it was obligatory on part of Defendants to have led cogent reasons that, scheme under the PEPSU Road Transport Corporation Employees/Pension Gratuity and General Provident Fund Regulations, 1992/Regulations was circulated between employees of Corporation and they were made to note the same so as to opt within specified period. It was further held that, Plaintiff had never opted out of Regulations. Aggrieved by judgment of Appellate Court, Regular Second Appeal was filed by Corporation in Punjab and Haryana High Court. High Court also dismissed appeal by observing that, there is no evidence that pension scheme was circulated within employees and got noted by them. Suit filed by Plaintiff had been decreed mainly on ground that, notice inviting option has not been personally served on Plaintiff.

Employees of Corporation were governed by Contributory Provident Fund Scheme prior to enforcement of Regulations w.e.f. 15th June, 1992. The pension scheme was introduced w.e.f. 15th June, 1992. Applicability of Regulations to employees who were working immediately before date of issue of Regulations i.e. 15th June, 1992 was dependent on opting for Regulations within a period of six months from date of issue of Regulations as provided under Regulation 4. Further, as per Regulation 4(iii) if an option is not exercised within a period of six months from date of issue of Regulations, it shall be deemed that, employee has to continue with the existing Contributory Provident Fund benefit, thus in the event of non-exercise of option within period prescribed, employee is deemed to continue in existing CPF benefit. There are no exceptions engrafted in deeming provisions and deeming is a legal fiction which embraces all employees who do not opt for new pension scheme. Regulations does not indicate that, period of six months which is provided for submitting an option is dependent on personal service of notice. Although, as noticed, Regulation has been forwarded on 15th June, 1992 itself to General Manager of all Depots and other places and letter dated 15th June, 1992 further contemplates putting on notice board in Head Office and Depots, the Corporation has thus taken care of circulation of Regulation to all concerned including Head Office and all Depots.

It is well settled that, notice inviting option need not to be personally served to employees unless Regulation or any instruction so provides. Regulations which are being considered in present case had already been interpreted in PEPSU Road Transport Corporation v. Mangal Singh. This Court having already held that, Regulations do not contemplate any personal service of notice to employees. From facts of present case, it is clear that although Regulations were in force from 1992, Plaintiff retired on 30th November, 2011 and after retirement received CPF benefits without any protest and at no point of time before retirement, he has raised any grievance. Benefit which was available to him under CPF scheme was received by Plaintiff, he cannot be allowed to another benefit flowing from pension scheme which he never opted. Extending benefit of pension scheme to Plaintiff shall be extending double benefits-CPF benefit as well as pension scheme which was never contemplated by Regulations. Issue in present case is covered by judgment in PEPSU Road Transport Corporation v. Mangal Singh.

Learned Counsel for Respondents has also submitted that in so far as outstanding amount of CPF is concerned, said amount could have been deducted by virtue of Regulation 24 and which amount is to be adjusted against death-cum-retirement gratuity. In present case, Plaintiff having not opted for pension scheme, requirement from refunding advance taken from CPF within six months is not attracted. Judgments of Courts below are unsustainable.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Relevant : PEPSU Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v. Mangal Singh and Ors <manuid>MANU/SC/0603/2011</manuid>: (2011) 11 SCC 702, Regulation 3, 4, 24 of PEPSU Road Transport Corporation Employees/Pension Gratuity and General Provident Fund Regulations, 1992</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Pension scheme, Notice, Option, Service</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>