The High Court vide its ex parte order dated 11.8.1997, directed the Corporation to pay all retrial benefits to the respondent within 2 months with interest.
hereinafter referred to as Bachittars appeal The respondent had joined the services of the Corporation as a Conductor on 07.07.1962.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Labour Court, respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which was allowed vide order dated 10.04.1996, setting aside the order of termination.
On 09.03.2005, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court for a direction to the Corporation to sanction pensionary benefits to the respondent under the pension scheme.
In companypliance with the above order of the High Court, the Managing Director of the Corporation, after giving the opportunity of hearing, passed a detailed order rejecting the claim of the respondent.
However, the respondent did number receive any retiral benefits on his retirement after attaining the age of superannuation due to pendency of litigation in the High Court regarding the payment of his back wages for the period of his absence from the service.
Shri K. K. Mohan, learned companynsel has appeared for the Corporation and the respondents are represented by a battery of learned companynsel.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2006, the Corporation filed a Regular Second Appeal in the Court of District Judge, Bathinda, the same was allowed vide Judgment and order dated 27.04.2006 on the ground that respondent is estopped from claiming any pensionary benefit by his act of receiving all the retrial benefits under the C.P.F. Scheme at the time of his retirement and failing to exercise the option in terms of Regulation 4 of the Regulations in order to avail the benefits under the pension scheme.
This time was further extended till 15.12.1992.
However, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana inter alia praying for pensionary benefits due to him under the pension scheme.
The respondent had also submitted numberination form of the C.P.F. scheme.
He was subscriber for C.P.F. and gratuity.
The learned Civil Judge further directed the Corporation to release pensionary benefit to the respondent along with interest 9 per annum till the date of realization.
Aggrieved by this order of the Additional District Judge dated 27.04.2006, the respondent filed a Regular Second Appeal in the High Court, the same was allowed vide order and judgment dated 23.12.2008.
The Pension Scheme in terms of Regulation 4 of the Regulations envisages the companydition of exercise of the option within a period of six months from the date of issue of the Regulations by an employee in order to avail the pensionary benefits under the scheme.
2173 of 1994, dated 25.05.2004 titled as PEPSU Road Transport Corporation v. Sant Ram Fitter, wherein, the High Court has observed that the rejection of the claim of respondent by the Corporation was illegal and arbitrary as the amount of advance can be adjusted against Death cum Retirement Gratuity payable to employee on his retirement as per Regulation 24 3 of the Regulations and it can even be deducted from the C.P.F. of the respondent.
It is number in dispute that the respondent had number exercised any option for availing the benefits under the pension scheme.
14562 of 2004 titled as Jagjit Singh v. Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another dated 03.12.2008, wherein, the appeal was allowed on the ground that the pension scheme was never circulated number was informed to the employees of the Corporation and mere number refund of the loan taken from the C.P.F. account would number disentitle the employee from claiming pension under the scheme.
Being aggrieved, the Corporation has filed this appeal.
In SLP Civil No.
On 08.06.2001, the respondent received all the retrial benefits under the C.P.F Scheme and gratuity without any objection or protest.
The Pension Scheme in terms of Regulation 3 h of the Regulations envisaged the companydition of refund of the loan taken from the P.F. account by an employee on or before 14.12.1992 in order to avail the pensionary benefits under the said scheme.
Eventually, the respondent retired as a driver on 30.09.1994 and has received an amount of 80,575/ under C.P.F. Scheme as retiral benefits.
The High Court has followed its earlier Judgment in Civil Writ Petition No.
In Civil Appeal No.
3349 of 2008 PEPSU Road Transport Corporation and Another v. Sharanjit Kaur, widow of Bachittar Singh and Ors.
The Fund shall be regulated in accordance with the rules and procedure to be prescribed by the Punjab Government from time to time.
However, 01.06.2002, after nearly 10years from his retirement, the respondent filed a suit for declaration for the entitlement to pension and other benefits in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Bathinda.
Subsequently, the Corporation had also extended this period by three months.
In the meantime, on 15.06.1992, the Corporation had introduced the Pension Scheme for its employees and also framed Regulations known as Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Employees Pension Gratuity and General Provident Fund Regulations 1992 Regulations for short in order to regulate the said scheme.
Subsequently, on 30.06.1982, the services of the respondent were terminated for his unauthorized absence from the duty.
The High Court has allowed the writ petition vide its order dated 09.08.2007 following its earlier Judgment in Civil Writ Petition No.
The Pension Scheme in terms of Regulation 3 h of the Regulations envisaged the companydition of refund of the loan taken from the C.P.F. account by an employee on or before 14.12.1992 in order to avail the pensionary benefits under the said Regulations.
The Regulation 4 of the said Regulations entitles the employee re joining after leave or suspension to exercise his option for Pension Scheme within the period of 6 months from the date of his re joining.
He had received all the monetary benefits including a sum of Rs.
The date of switchover for the existing employees to General Provident Fund shall be date of issue of these Regulations.
hereinafter referred to as Baldevs appeal The respondent joined the services of the Corporation as a driver on 13.10.1966 and had subscribed to C.P.F. and gratuity.
The respondent retired as Inspector on 28.02.1997.
10285 of 1998 vide its order dated 09.08.2007 has allowed the appeal following its earlier decision in RSA No.
Subsequently, on 15.06.1992, the Corporation introduced the Pension Scheme for its employees and also made the Regulations in order to regulate the said scheme.
The respondent had applied for the pension scheme but failed to return the said loan amount.
In the year 1989, respondent took the loan from his P.F. account to the tune of 26,000/ .
Application 1 These Regulations shall apply to the employees of the PEPSU Road Transport Corporation who Were are appointed on or after the date of issue of Regulations on whole time and regular basis and Were working immediately before the date of issue of Regulations and opt for these Regulations.
In Civil Appeal No.
The High Court has allowed the writ petition vide its order dated 19.01.2007 on the ground that the provisions of Regulation 4 do number companyer the case of the persons reinstated into service pursuant to the orders of the Court.
330 of 2008 PEPSU Road Transport Corporation and Another v. Baldev Singh Ors.
4111 of 2008 PEPSU Road Transport Corporation and Another v. Mangal Singh Ors.
In the light of this, the High Court has further directed the Corporation to release pensionary benefits to the respondent with interest 6 per annum from the date of accrual of pension till the date of payment thereof within two months from the date of the order.
On 30.11.2000, the respondent took pre mature voluntary retirement.
hereinafter referred to as Mangals appeal , respondent joined the services of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation hereinafter referred to as Corporation as driver on 07.11.1974 and his services were governed by service rules of the Corporation which included the eligibility to receive Contributory Provident Fund for short, C.P.F. and gratuity.
Subsequently, on 15.06.1992, the Corporation had introduced the Pension Scheme for its employees along with the Regulations to regulate the said scheme.
Being aggrieved by the said order dated 18.08.1998, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court.
An employee may, however, subscribe voluntarily at higher rate than that prescribed by the Punjab Government.
In SLP Civil No.
However, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court praying for pensionary benefits due to him under the pension scheme.
The respondent had applied for the pension scheme but failed to return the said loan amount.
In the year 1986, respondent took loan from his C.P.F. account to the tune of 12,000.
It is number in dispute that respondent did number opt for the Pension Scheme till the date of his retirement.
The learned Civil Judge had passed the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2006 in favor of the respondent on the ground that the respondent was never informed about the option available under the Regulations and he came to know about this Scheme only at the time of his retirement.
Subsequently, on 15.06.1992, the Corporation had introduced the Pension Scheme for its employees along with the Regulations in order to regulate the said scheme.
The Pension Scheme in terms of Regulation 4 of the Regulations envisages the companydition for exercise of the option on or before 15.12.1992, by an employee in order to avail the pensionary benefits under the scheme.
The High Court further directed the Corporation to allow the respondent to exercise his option for pension scheme within six months from the date of the order and the formalities for payment of pension be finalized within a particular time frame.
10285 of 1998 Bachhitar Singh v. PEPSU Road Transport Corporation .
The respondent raised an industrial dispute against his termination order, which was dismissed by the Labour Court vide its order dated 11.02.1994.
The High Court Civil Writ Petition No.
L. Dattu, J. Leave granted in SLP C No.
99,005/ under C.P.F. Scheme.
3349 of 2008 and SLP C 330 of 2008.
These Regulations shall number apply to the employees, who Opt out of these Regulations.
3846 of 2010 PEPSU Road Transport Corporation and Another v. Jagroop Singh hereinafter referred to as Jagroops appeal , the respondent had served the Corporation as a driver and was subscriber of C.P.F. and gratuity.
The High Court further directed the reinstatement of the respondent with effect from 18.06.1996.
Aggrieved by this, the Corporation filed a review petition, which was allowed by the High Court vide its order dated 22.05.1998, directing the Corporation to determine whether any amount is due to the respondent by passing a speaking order.
