Statutory pension scheme conditions control entitlement when option and refund requirements are mandatory; individual notice is not essential.

A statutory pension scheme framed under the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 imposed mandatory option and refund conditions, and a deeming clause treated non-compliance as continuation under contributory provident fund. Employees who did not satisfy those regulatory requirements could not claim pensionary benefits merely by asserting a right to pension, because contributory provident fund and pension are distinct retirement benefits. The regulations did not require individual written notice to each employee, and absence of such notice did not excuse failure to comply with the scheme conditions. The appeals succeeded, the High Court's orders were set aside, and the pension claim was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the employees were entitled to pensionary benefits without complying with the option and refund requirements in the pension regulations. (ii) Whether individual notice of the pension scheme was a precondition for enforcing the option requirement.

Issue (i): Whether the employees were entitled to pensionary benefits without complying with the option and refund requirements in the pension regulations.

Analysis: The pension scheme was governed by statutory regulations framed under the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, and those regulations had binding force. The scheme required eligible employees to exercise the prescribed option within the stipulated time and, where applicable, to refund the employer's share of contributory provident fund taken in advance. The regulations also contained a deeming provision that treated failure to exercise the option or to comply with the refund condition as continuation under the contributory provident fund arrangement. The Court held that pension is a right only when the employee satisfies the governing rules and regulations, and that contributory provident fund and pension are distinct retirement benefits.

Conclusion: The employees who did not comply with the mandatory conditions were not entitled to pensionary benefits. The finding was against the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether individual notice of the pension scheme was a precondition for enforcing the option requirement.

Analysis: The regulations did not require individual written notice to each employee. The Court distinguished the precedent relied upon by the respondents because the present scheme contained no such express notice condition. Knowledge of the scheme could be inferred from surrounding circumstances and conduct. In these circumstances, absence of individual notice did not excuse non-compliance with the regulatory conditions for opting into the pension scheme.

Conclusion: Individual notice was not as a condition precedent, and the respondents could not rely on absence of such notice to claim pension. The finding was against the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the High Court's orders were set aside, and the claim for pensionary benefits was rejected for non-compliance with the governing regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory pension scheme prescribes mandatory option and refund conditions and also creates a deeming consequence for non-compliance, employees who fail to satisfy those conditions cannot claim pension merely on the ground that they were not individually notified of the scheme.

---