Supreme Court - Daily Orders
State Of Rajasthan vs Maharana Pratap Krishi Avam Prodyogiki ... on 19 November, 2014
Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, Arun Mishra
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.10385 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.30255 of 2014)
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR .......APPELLANTS
VERSUS
MAHARANA PRATAP KRISHI AVAM PRODYOGIKI
VISHWAVIDHALAYA PENSIONERS WELFARE SOCIETY
UDAIPUR AND ANR ......RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
Issue notice.
Mr.Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel, who appears on caveat
on behalf of the respondents, accepts notice.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has
no objection if the matter is finally disposed of.
Leave granted.
As an interim direction, the High Court vide the impugned
order has required the State Government to provide funds for the
payment of pension to the private respondents. Insofar as the above
direction is concerned, the High Court placed emphatic reliance on
the judgment rendered by this Court in State of Rajasthan vs.
A.N.Mathur & Ors., (2013) 12 Scale 43. Having gone through the
aforesaid judgment, we are of the view that the private respondents
cannot draw any benefit therefrom. In the above judgment this Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Satish Kumar Yadav
Date: 2014.11.24
clearly arrived at the conclusion, that the pension scheme could
17:23:55 IST
Reason:
not be framed without the approval of the Finance Department of the
State.
2
The pension scheme under which the private respondents
are claiming pension in the present controversy, is not the one on
which adjudication was rendered by this Court in the
above-mentioned judgment. It is, therefore, that the learned
counsel for the private respondents invited our attention to the
observations recorded in paragraph 36 of the judgment rendered in
State of Rajasthan's case (supra). In the above judgment, this
Court clarified, that if prior to passing of the resolution dated
7th December, 2000 (by the Board of Management of the University),
there was any scheme of pension, and if some of the employees had
opted for the said scheme, payment of pension to such employees
would not be affected by virtue of this judgment. The above
observations, in our considered view, do not create any exception
in favour of the private respondents. If the private respondents
are entitled to pension under a pensionary scheme promulgated prior
to the resolution referred to hereinabove, they would be entitled
to payment thereof in terms of the said scheme.
Insofar as the above aspect of the matter is concerned,
reference may be made to the University Pension Regulations, 1950
whereunder the private respondents claim pension. Regulation 3(5)
of the above Regulation provides as under:
“3(5) “Pension Fund” means the fund created for
the purpose of transferring the total accumulated
amount of University contributed in C.P.F.
(including the amount of loan taken out of it) and
interest thereon as on date of commencement of the
regulations in respect of such employees who opted
or are desired to have opted the pension scheme
under these regulations. The pension paid to the
retired employees shall be charged to this fund.”
3
A perusal of the above Regulation reveals, that the pension is to
be paid out of the accumulated amount of the University gathered
from the contributions to the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.
That being the legal position, payment of pension to the private
respondents had to be made out of the “Pension Fund” created out of
the accumulated amount of the Universities' contribution towards
Contributory Provident Fund. In other words, pension was payable
only out of the “Pension Fund”. The State could not have been
required to make any payment towards pension, insofar as the
private respondents are concerned.
In the above view of the matter, we are satisfied that
the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The appeal is
accordingly allowed, and the impugned order is hereby set aside.
...........................J.
(JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)
...........................J.
(ARUN MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 19, 2014.
4
ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.5 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 30255/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14/10/2014
in SBCWP No. 6926/2014 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at
Jaipur)
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
MAHARANA PRATAP KRISHI AVAM PRODYOGIKI
VISHWAVIDHALAYA PENSIONERS WELFARE SOCIETY
UDAIPUR AND ANR Respondent(s)
(With interim relief and office report)
Date : 19/11/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
For Petitioner(s) Mr.Ranjit Kumar, SG
Mr.S.S.Shamshery, AAG
Mr.Amit Sharma, Adv.
Mr.Sandeep Singh, Adv.
Mr.Varun Punia, Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr.Basava S.Patil, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv.
Mr.Nikhil Singhania, Adv.
Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Issue notice.
Mr.Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel, who appears on caveat on behalf of the respondents, accepts notice.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has no objection if the matter is finally disposed of.
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PHOOLAN WATI ARORA) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Signed order is placed on the file)