Shambhu Dayal vs Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. and Others

Prakash Tatia, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner was an employee of erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board which now and by virtue of some changes, is Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (JVVNL). For the petitioner and other employees, earlier there was no provision for grant of pension and subsequently, the petitioner''s employer decided to give benefit of scheme of pension and, therefore, they decided to frame RSEB Employees Pension Regulations, 1988 and RSEB Employees GPF Regulations, 1988 which came into force from 28.11.1988. The option was given to the employer by fixing time that within the time limit, the employees may submit their option for shifting from CPF scheme to Pension scheme. The petitioner admittedly submitted his option form for opting benefit in CPF scheme and did not chose to avail the benefit of pension scheme. The petitioner now is going to retire within a period of one year or so and now the petitioner wants to change his option by shifting from CPF to pension scheme. Said request has been rejected by the respondent vide communication dated 29.06.2009. Hence, this petition.

According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the Rules referred above, there is no provision providing for time limit for submitting the option for shifting from CPF to Pension scheme. It is also submitted that the person who already retired and were not having an opportunity to opt for the pension scheme when denied benefit of pension, then they approached this Court and this Court in that situation allowed the prayer of those persons who already retired and allowed them to opt for pension. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in this connection placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Udai Singh Udawat v. Rajasthan High Court and Ors., reported in 2005(3) WLC (Raj.) 636. In that case, the employee was employed as Laboratory Assistant in Jai Narain Vyas University retired before introduction of the pension scheme and this Court held that, "Thus, as per Appendix IX the service rendered by the petitioner as Laboratory Assistant is liable to be counted, if he is prepared to deposit the amount received by him under the Provident Fund Scheme with interest at the rate of 6%." In that situation and the facts of the case only, the said petitioner was granted the benefit of counting of past service for the purpose of determining his entitlement to the pension.

I considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the facts of the case.

I found no force in the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner himself, after coming into force of the pension scheme, when was given option to opt for pension and he did not specifically chose to opt for pension and specifically opted for CPF scheme, cannot as a matter of right claim shifting from CPF to pension scheme so as to make a process continuous for an indefinite period. In view of the facts mentioned above, the judgment delivered in the case of Udai Singh Udawat (supra) has no application to the facts of the case in hand.

In view of the above reasons, this writ petition, having no merits, is hereby dismissed.

However, it is made clear that in view of the communication sent to the petitioner, it has been informed to the petitioner that presently, there is no provision for permitting shifting from one scheme to another scheme. Therefore, in case, the employer decided to grant the benefit to the employee further by giving them option to change the scheme, then the petitioner may have right but unless and until a decision is taken by the employer of giving such benefit, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of pension by shifting from one scheme to another scheme.