AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1) Appointed as an L.D.C. by the Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation and promoted as an U.D.C. Upon
retirement the appellant sought pension to be disbursed to him
under the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees
(Pension) Regulations, 1989. When the appellant had joined
service the Pension Regulations were not in force and employees
of the Corporation were members of a Contributory Provident
Fund Scheme. The existing employees were required to submit an
option to shift over to the pension scheme and if no option was
exercised they were deemed to have exercised an option in favour
of pension. As per the respondents, in paragraph 5 of the reply
filed, it was pleaded that on 17/02/1993 the appellant submitted
an option to continue to be a member of the C.P.F. Scheme. Said
assertion in paragraph 5 of the reply filed has not been
controverted in the rejoinder filed.
2) Thus, argument of the appellant that since the letter
dated 17/02/1993 was not produced before learned Single judge,
the learned Single Judge could not have treated that the appellant
gave the letter dated 17/02/1993, is noted and rejected by us. An
admission can be in a pleading. By not denying the positive
assertion made by the respondents in paragraph 5 of the reply in
the rejoinder filed by the appellant the admission exists.
3) The appellant relied upon the letter dated 17/07/1996
having receipt No.3189 as proof that he had opted for pension.
The said letter was denied by the respondents and in respect
thereof the facts have been noted by the learned Single Judge in
paragraph 3 of the impugned decision which reads as under:-
"(3) The respondents filed their reply and submitted that the petitioner was Member of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) and he continues to remain Member of CPF having CPF Account No.I-124. It is stated that option letter was submitted by him on 17.02.1993 whereby the petitioner opted to remain member of CPF which was after 1.4.1989, therefore, he was a Member of CPF. It is also stated that the petitioner had obtained loan of Rs. 63,300/- from his CPF Account on 29.05.2003. Further, it is stated that the letter of option placed by the petitioner is doubtful as the receipt No.3189 dated 17.07.1996 marked on the said letter is not by any of the official of the respondents nor it is signed by the then Chief Manager, RSRTC Barmer Hanuta Ram as he was out of Office from 16.07.1996 to 18.07.1996 which is evident as per his attendance sheet of Chief Manager Office, Barmer. Further the letter has been doubted on account of the inward No.3189 dated 17.07.1996 endorsed the so called option form is incorrect as the letter received by the Office of respondent No.3 on 16.07.1996 from the Office of Financial Advisor was entered with inward No.3547 on 16.07.1996 and thus, on proof inward No.3189 could not find on 17.07.1996. A chart has also been placed with the reply showing inward Nos. of 3547 as dated 16.07.1996, inward No.19.7.1996 as 3628, inward No.3247 as dated 25.06.1996. Thus, on 17.07.1996 inward No.3189 could never be issued and thus, the petitioner has not submitted any option form on 17.07.1996 nor the same is on record and he, therefore, could not have been entitled for pension."
4) We concur with the reasoning given by the learned
Single Judge. We find no infirmity in the view taken by the
learned Single Judge. We also note that during his service, the
appellant sought and was granted a loan from his C.P.F.
Account.
5) The writ appeal is dismissed in limine.