RATTI RAM Vs. PRTC AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed as a Conductor with the respondent Pepsu Road Transport Corporation on 28.6.1959. He rose to the post of General Manager on 13.4.1995 and retired from service as General Manager on 30.4.1998.

(2.) The grouse of the petitioner is that on 15.6.1992, the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Employees Pension/Gratuity and General Provident Fund Regulations, 1992 (for short, `Pension Regulation 1992') came into existence with immediate effect for the purpose of granting retiral benefits to the employees of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation. Petitioner has been contributing towards provident fund. The Pension Regulations 1992 were applicable to the employees of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, including the petitioner. Petitioner exercised the option on 7.8.1992 i.e. within the mandatory period of six months under Regulation 9 of the Pension Regulations 199 He opted for retiral benefits admissible under the Pension Regulations 199 The option was duly submitted to the General Manager, who forwarded the same to the Managing Director. Petitioner retired from service on 30.4.1998. However, his pension and retiral benefits were not released. Contributory Provident Fund amount of Rs. 12 lacs was released to the petitioner. However, the pension as per said scheme has not been released to him. It is further stated that under Regulation 24, the dues, if any, could be adjusted. The fact that the provident fund amounting to Rs. 12 lacs has been released to the petitioner after retirement goes to show that nothing was due against him. It was further stated that on account revision of pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1996, the petitioner was entitled to amount of Rs. 28,832/- approximately on account of arrears of salary. However, the respondents disbursed only a sum of Rs. 14,416/- and remaining amount was not disbursed to the petitioner. Petitioner is also entitled to the same. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to release the pension and other retiral benefits to him.

(3.) In the written statement, the respondents have admitted the existence of Pension Regulations 1992 w.e.f. 15.6.1992. It was stated that as per Regulation 3, the employees, who opted for pension/gratuity and Regulation General Provident Fund, 1992 but failed to refund the advance taken out of the employer's share of contributory provident fund along with interest thereon within the stipulated period, shall not be entitled for the benefits under these Regulations. It was stated that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 41,000/- in the month of February and March 1990. Out of this, a sum of Rs. 29,000/- was employer's share which was repayable along with interest of Rs. 11,269/- in December 1992. Therefore, in December 1992, a sum of Rs. 40,269/- was required to be deposited by the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not repay the same. He was served with notices dated 15.9.1992 and 2.12.1992 but he still did not pay the same. Therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit under the Pension Regulations 1992. It was stated that the petitioner has received the provident fund of Rs. 2,12,905/- without any protest. Regarding less payment of arrears of salary, it was stated that 50% of the total amount was paid to the petitioner, due to paucity of funds. On the availability of funds, the petitioner will be paid the balance amount along with other employees.