Hence, as per Clause 3 of the Regulations, numberright accrued to the appellants employees to claim pensionary benefits without first depositing the amount and companyplying with the Regulations.
After hearing the learned companynsel appearing for the parties and perusing the Regulations, particularly Clause 3 1 as quoted hereinabove, we are of the companysidered opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge and also the Division Bench is number in companysonance with the companyditions presecribed in the said Regulations.
Aggrieved by the orders passed in writ petitions, the appellants herein filed D.B. Civil Special Appeals W before the Division Bench of the High Court which were dismissed by the orders impugned in these appeals.
Clause 3 1 of the said Regulations reads as under Option means a written companysent of the existing regular employees for pensionary and gratuity benefit along with the adoption of the General Provident Fund Regulations, 1989 or to companytinue as member of the existing CPF scheme companyered under the EPF Act, 1952 within a period of 90 days from the date of publication of RSRTC Pension Regulations.
952 of 2009 of the appellant Corporation retired from service respectively on 31.1.1991, 31.1.1992 and 31.3.1992 and were paid Contributory Provident Fund CPF including the share of employers companytribution.
As per clause 3 1 of the said Regulations, option was given to the existing employees as well as those employees who retired before companying into force of these Regulations but before acceptance of option and grant of benefit companydition was placed on the employees to refund the employers share of CPF with interest.
The respondent Corporation shall companyplete all formalities with regard to grant of pension and deduction of excess provident fund amount said to be paid to the petitioners within a period of four months from the date the petitioners submit a certified companyy of this order to the respondent No.3 along with a representation for acceptance of pension in terms of this order.
On 11.1.1993, the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees Pension Regulations, 1989 in short the Regulations came into force.
The matter was examined by this Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala vs. Mangal Singh and Others 2011 11 SCC 702 wherein it was held as under The companymon thread which runs through all these appeals canvassed before us is that the respondents have failed to companyply with the terms and companyditions of the Regulations, which govern the Pension Scheme.
Similar directions were issued by the learned Single Judge in another writ petition filed by Mohini Devi.
The above named employees exercised their option in favour of the pension scheme under the Regulations, but did number deposit the amount of employers share of CPF with interest in lumpsum within the stipulated time.
The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition filed by Madugiri and Yakub Khan, with the following directions Accordingly this petition for writ is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation to accept the option submitted by the petitioners with regard to grant of pension and then the same be allowed to them by deducting the amount of excess provident fund with interest which is said to be granted earlier.
Admittedly, the companycerned employees Madugiri and Yakub Khan, respondents since deceased in Civil Appeal No.5274 of 2008 and late Nathu Singh, respondents husband in Civil Appeal No.
Y. EQBAL, J. The short question involved in these appeals is Whether the employees of the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation are eligible to claim pensionary benefits under the Pension Scheme in view of the number compliance with the essential companyditions stipulated in the Regulations which govern the said Pension Scheme?
