RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. Vs. DWARKA PRASAD KOOLWAL
LAWS(SC)-2014-8-17
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on
August 07,2014
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Appellant
VERSUS
Dwarka Prasad Koolwal
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM VS. BACHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. MANGAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
HARADHAN DUTTA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2017-6-27] [REFERRED TO]PATEL MATHURBHAI GOPALBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-6-127] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR NATH MUKHERJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2019-9-112] [REFERRED TO]
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATIALA VS. AMANDEEP SINGH & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
M.S. PANWAR VS. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI VS. SHASHI KIRAN [LAWS(SC)-2022-5-37] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA NARAYANA IYER VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-8-1022] [REFERRED TO]
JNAN RANJAN DAS VS. SOUTH BENGAL STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(CAL)-2022-6-47] [REFERRED TO]
PROF NEERAJ KHARE VS. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY IIT DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2023-10-135] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDHYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LIMITED, VS. KAILASH CHANDRA BHATT [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-11-264] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The primary question for consideration in all these appeals is whether the respondents were entitled, as of right, to one more opportunity to switch-over from the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme of which they were members, to the Pension Scheme and the General Provident Fund Scheme implemented by the appellant with effect from 28th November, 1988?
Broadly speaking, the contention of the respondents is that they were unaware of the switch-over option since they were posted in remote areas of Rajasthan, while the contention of the appellant is that a large number of opportunities extending over 8 years were given to the respondents to exercise the switchover option and that they could not claim any right to any further opportunity to make the switch over.
(3.)In our opinion, the contention of the appellant must be accepted and the impugned judgment and order dated 17th May, 2012 accepting the contention of the respondents has to be set aside.
The facts
(2.)The primary question for consideration in all these appeals is whether the respondents were entitled, as of right, to one more opportunity to switch-over from the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme of which they were members, to the Pension Scheme and the General Provident Fund Scheme implemented by the appellant with effect from 28th November, 1988?
Broadly speaking, the contention of the respondents is that they were unaware of the switch-over option since they were posted in remote areas of Rajasthan, while the contention of the appellant is that a large number of opportunities extending over 8 years were given to the respondents to exercise the switchover option and that they could not claim any right to any further opportunity to make the switch over.
(3.)In our opinion, the contention of the appellant must be accepted and the impugned judgment and order dated 17th May, 2012 accepting the contention of the respondents has to be set aside.
The facts
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.