2011 (5) TMI 1121 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility to claim pensionary benefits under the Pension Scheme.
2. Compliance with essential conditions stipulated in the Regulations governing the Pension Scheme.
3. Requirement of individual notice for exercising the option for the Pension Scheme.
4. Adjustment and recovery of dues related to the Contributory Provident Fund (C.P.F.).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility to Claim Pensionary Benefits:
The core issue in the appeals is whether the respondents are eligible to claim pensionary benefits under the Pension Scheme despite non-compliance with the essential conditions stipulated in the Regulations. The respondents had either not exercised their option for the Pension Scheme within the specified time or, having opted, failed to comply with the terms and conditions, such as refunding the advance taken from the employer's contribution to the C.P.F.

2. Compliance with Essential Conditions:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the Regulations governing the Pension Scheme have the force of law. These Regulations require strict compliance, and any deviation renders actions illegal and invalid. The respondents, in all appeals, had availed of the retiral benefits under the C.P.F. and gratuity without any protest and made claims for pensionary benefits only after retirement with unreasonable delays. The Court reiterated that statutory Regulations are binding and effective as enactments of the competent legislature, and any breach of these Regulations would amount to a violation, rendering such actions or orders illegal and invalid.

3. Requirement of Individual Notice:
The respondents argued that they were not given the opportunity to exercise the option for the Pension Scheme due to the non-service of individual notices. The Court, however, held that there was no requirement in the Pension Scheme or Regulations for serving individual notices. The Court referenced the case of Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, stating that when notice or knowledge of the Pension Scheme can be reasonably inferred from the conduct of the respondents and surrounding circumstances, it constitutes sufficient notice in the eyes of the law. The Court found that the respondents' argument for want of knowledge due to non-service of individual notices was not tenable.

4. Adjustment and Recovery of Dues:
The Court discussed the provisions related to the adjustment and recovery of dues under the C.P.F. Scheme. The Regulations stipulated that employees who opted for the Pension Scheme but failed to refund the advance taken from the employer's contribution to the C.P.F. within the specified period would be deemed to have opted to continue with the existing C.P.F. benefit. The respondents' failure to comply with these conditions disentitled them from claiming any benefits under the Pension Scheme.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgments and orders. The Court held that the respondents were not entitled to claim pensionary benefits under the Pension Scheme due to their non-compliance with the essential conditions stipulated in the Regulations. The Court emphasized the binding nature of statutory Regulations and the necessity for strict adherence to their terms.