Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation filed a case challenging the judgment of the division bench of Rajasthan High Court displacing the D B special appeals filed by them
He was appointed as a junior assistant in1974 in Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Limited. The State Government closed the Rajasthan State Agro Industries Limited and declared its employees as surplus in number. The State Government took a decision to absorb services of all surplus employees in different Corporations. The guidelines also contained provisions for various benefits to be extended to the absorbed employees. They absorbed them by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vide order dated 03.10.1996. The Corporation issued a notification dated 12.02.1997 in relation to the absorbed employees laying down the procedure for the employees, who want to opt either C.P.F Scheme or the G.P.F. and Pension Scheme.
He was governed by Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and the Pension Scheme was not applicable in Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Limited.
The High cCurt said, "Hon’ble High Court may kindly quash and set aside the circular dated 09.02.1999 (Annexure-8) issued in the garb of Notification dated 12.02.1997.”
From the facts they came to know was that the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation were continued in the CPF Scheme and the contribution of the Employees and Employers were deposited and after retirement of the respondent, the entire amount accumulated has been paid to the respondent with gratuity and other benefits.
The bench consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan said, “To balance equities between the parties ends of justice be served in directing the Corporation to pay pension to the respondents only with effect from the date on which deposit is made by respondents. The pension received by respondents under CPF Scheme shall be allowed to be retained by the respondents. This means that the amount received as pension under the CPF need not be given back by the respondents and the same shall not be deducted when the pension is computed and paid by the appellant to the respondents. Subject to above modifications in the impugned judgment of the High Court, we dismiss both the appeals.”