32. Both CPF and Pension Schemes are beneficial Schemes for the employees which are of different nature. In a Contributory Provident Fund Scheme Employer makes matching contributions to the Employees contribution and both are kept in separate account and on retirement of employees both are released to the employee along with the interest. The Pension is a periodic payment to the employee after the retirement from the service by the Employer. Payment of Pension is made under scheme floated by Employer. Pension Scheme contemplates a fund out of which the pension is payable to an employee. The payment of pension is dependent on various considerations and conditions. This Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala versus Mangal Singh and others, (2011) 11 SCC 702, while considering Pension Scheme and contributory Provident Fund Scheme under Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Employees’ Pension/Gratuity and General Provident Fund Regulations, 1992 made following observations in paragraph 34:-

“34. Pension is a retirement benefit partaking of the character of regular payment to a person in consideration of the past services rendered by him. We hasten to add that although pension is not a bounty but is claimable as a matter of right, yet the right is not absolute or unconditional. The person claiming pension must establish his entitlement to such pension in law. The entitlement might be dependent upon various considerations or conditions. In a given case, (sic whether) the retired employee is entitled to pension or not depends on the provisions and interpretation of the rules and regulations. The contributory provident fund appears to be a simple mechanism where an employee is paid the total amount which he has contributed along with the equal contribution made by the employer ordinarily at the time of retirement of an employee. In short, we quote what was repeatedly said by this Court that “pension is payable periodically as long as the pensioner is alive whereas CPF is paid only once on retirement.” Therefore, conceptually, pension and CPF are separate and distinct.”

38. The contention which has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant before us is that there was no transfer of capital amount of the erstwhile employer of respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied and refer to the letter dated 18.09.1998 issued by the Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Limited. This has been brought on record as Annexure-P/1. A perusal of Annexure-P/1 indicates that Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation by letter dated 29.07.1998 requested the Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Limited for transferring capital value amount in regard to the respondent. The erstwhile employer of the respondent informed the appellant that capital value amount in regard to the absorbed employees is not due to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. The appellant was informed that contribution of Provident Fund amount is deposited in the account of Commissioner, Provident Fund, Government of India which can be got transferred. The question to be answered is as to whether apart from transfer of employee’s contribution and employer’s contribution deposited in the account of Commissioner, Provident Fund, there is any other amount which required to be transferred to the appellant for the purpose of making the respondent eligible for the benefit of pension. Regulation 43 of the Regulations, 1989 is the provision of transfer of Pension Fund by Corporation. The Regulation makes it clear that except those employees who have opted for continuing to CPF, employer’s share shall be transferred to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Pension Fund and the employees share with interest shall be transferred to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation GPF Fund. For the employees who were entitled to grant of pension there is mention of only two Funds that is Pension Fund and GPF Fund. The employer’s share was to be transferred to Pension Fund and employee’s share shall be transferred to GPF Fund. Clause 11 sub-cause (b) of Circular dated 02.07.1991 also refers to only two accounts i.e. GPF Account and Pension Fund. As per clause 11(b) in an Enterprise having pension scheme, the balance in CPF Account of surplus employees would be transferred to absorbing Enterprise for credit to the GPF Account of the employees and the Pension Fund in proportion of employees own subscription and organisation’s contribution respectively. Thus, employee’s contribution shall go to the GPF Account and employer’s proportion should be credited to the Pension Fund. Clause 11(b) makes it clear that when the respondent was absorbed in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, the balance in CPF Account of the surplus employees would be transferred in GPF Account and the Pension Fund respectively. The certificate issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner which has been filed at Annexure R-8 makes it clear that contribution of employee Rs.92.504/- and contribution of employer Rs.101282/- have been transferred to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation which was the amount credited with Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The entire amount having been transferred to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation it was the obligation of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation to credit the aforesaid amount in respect of Pension Fund and GPF Fund. Neither Regulations, 1989 nor Circular dated 02.07.1991 refers to any capital amount. There was no obligation of erstwhile employer of the respondent to transfer any capital amount. Neither any such capital amount was contemplated by 1989 Regulations or by Scheme of absorption dated 02.07.1991. The Circular dated 02.07.1991 is in conformity with the Regulations, 1989 and a reading of Regulation 43 of Regulations 1989 as well as Circular dated 02.07.1991 makes it abundantly clear that for benefit of Pension Scheme what was required to be transferred by the erstwhile employer was the employees contribution which was to get transferred into the GPF Account and the employer’s contribution to be credited in the Pension Fund. Nothing more was required to be done by the respondent or erstwhile employer for fulfilling any condition or statutory requirement with regard to the respondent’s claim of pension. After transfer of the amount aforesaid, the respondent having given option regarding opting the pension scheme, it was statutory obligation of the appellant to credit both the aforesaid amounts and thereafter continues to deposit 10% in the Pension Fund and after retirement calculates the pension accordingly.

39. The notification dated 12.02.1997 specially Clause 2(vi) on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant also does not refer to any sum as a capital amount which needs to be transferred to the appellant for making employee eligible for Pension. The circular dated 09.02.1999 filed by the appellant as Annexure-P/2 does refer to capital amount but it relies on notification dated 12.02.1997 specifically on Clause 2(vi). Clause 2(vi) of notification dated 12.02.1997 does not refer to any capital amount. Thus, the statement in Circular dated 09.02.1999 that only upon receipt of capital amount from Rajasthan State Agro Industries Corporation Limited employees were entitled to get benefit of Corporation Pension is unfounded and without any basis. Clause 2(vi) contemplates that those employees who give their option under Employee Pension Scheme, 1989 their deducted Provident Fund Contribution amount of earlier service on receiving back from P.F. Commissioner Office by their employer will be forwarded to Corporation. We have already noticed that both employee’s contribution and employer’s contribution which were deposited with Provident Fund Commissioner Office was transferred to Corporation. Thus, what was contemplated by Clause 2(vi) of notification dated 12.02.1997 was complied with.

40. We are satisfied that there was no justifiable ground for the appellant for not sanctioning the claim of pension of the respondent after his retirement.

41. Learned counsel for the appellant has emphasized that the respondent continued to receive pension under the CPF Scheme which fact has not been denied by the respondent. The respondent’s case was that the said amount was accepted by the respondent since he had no option his pension having not been sanctioned by the appellant. We are of view that it was open for the Corporation-appellant while sanctioning the pension to the respondent to deduct the amount of pension received by him under CPF Scheme and the pension could have been accordingly fixed by reducing the pension amount already received by the respondent which respondent was getting under CPF Scheme but that could not have been a reason for denying pension to the respondent. The payment of gratuity to the respondent was also made of Rs. 10 lakh which was paid in the account of the respondent.