Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Counsel For Appellant Brought To Our ... vs Madu Giri (Dead) Through L.Rs. & Anr. ... on 26 November, 2014
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** DB Special Appeal (W) No.361/2003 Date of Order ::: 26/11/2014 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Hon'ble Mr. Justice Veerendr Singh Siradhana Ms. Manjeet Kaur for appellant. Mr. BL Choudhary, for respondent.
Instant intra court appeal has been filed against the order of ld. Single Judge dt.3.7.2000 impugned in the instant proceedings.
Counsel for appellant brought to our notice a judgment of the Apex Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Madu Giri (dead) through L.Rs. & Anr. reported in 2013(3) RLW 2320 decided on 26.04.2013 and submits that in the light of controversy which has been decided by the Apex Court, the order passed by the ld. Single Judge does not hold good and deserves to be set aside.
Counsel for respondent is also unable to distinguish the judgment of Apex Court relied upon by counsel for appellant. In para-8 of the judgment, the Apex Court has referred the view expressed in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala vs. Mangal Singh and Others (2011) 11 SCC 702 being relevant for the present purpose reads ad infra-
51. The common thread which runs through all these appeals canvassed before us is that the respondents have failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Regulations, which govern the Pension Scheme. We have already considered the nature and effect of the regulations, which are made under a statute. These statutory regulations require to be interpreted in the same manner which is adopted while interpreting any other statutory provisions. The Corporation as well as the respondents are obliged and bound to comply with its mandatory conditions and requirements. Any action or conduct deviating from these conditions shall render such action illegal and invalid. Moreover, the respondents have availed the retiral benefits arising out of CPF and gratuity without any protest.
52. The respondents in all these appeals, before us, have made a claim for pensionary benefits under the Pension Scheme for the first time only after their retirement with an unreasonable delay of more than 8 years. It is not in dispute, in some appeals, that the respondents never opted for the Pension Scheme for their alleged want of knowledge for non-service of individual notices. In other appeals, although the respondents applied for the option of the Pension Scheme but indisputably never fulfilled the quintessential conditions envisaged by the Regulations which are statutory in nature.
In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court referred to supra, we are of the view that the order of the ld. Single Judge does not hold good.
Consequently, the special appeal stands allowed. The order of the ld. Single Judge impugned dt.3.7.2000 is quashed and set aside. No cost.
[Veerendr Singh Siradhana), J. [Ajay Rastogi], J. dsr/-
"All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed"
Datar Singh P.S.