Interpretation of the applicability of GPF Scheme and Contributory Pension Scheme to government servants appointed before and after a specified cut-off date.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court for payment of death-cum-retiral benefits including family pension, gratuity, leave encashment and PF amount after the death of her husband in harness on 20.1.2009.

3. Certain other in-service benefits like, ACP, difference of salary, etc. have been claimed by the petitioner for which learned counsel for the petitioner is granted liberty to take recourse to appropriate proceedings including another writ petition.

4. The husband of the petitioner joined on muster roll on the post of Khalasi on 1.5.1980. On 26.1.1988 his services were taken over in the work charged establishment on the post of Khalasi. On 1.6.2002 he was reverted back on muster roll, whereupon the petitioner along with others approached this Court and on the basis of the direction of this Court the cases of the petitioner and others were examined by a three-member Committee in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others: (2006) 4 SCC 1. On the basis of the recommendation of the three-member committee the services of the husband of the petitioner was regularized on 1.12.2006. Thereafter on 20.1.2009 while still in service the husband of the petitioner died. The petitioner claims the death-cum-retiral dues.

5. The stand of the State is that the husband of the petitioner having been appointed on 1.12.2006, his case would be covered by the Resolution dated 31.8.2005 of the State Government under which all Government servants who have been appointed on or after 1.9.2005 would be covered by the Contributory Pension Scheme under the Bihar Government Servant Contributory Pension Schemes, 2005. Since the husband of the petitioner was appointed after the said cut-off date of 1.9.2005, the petitioner would not be entitled to family pension.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Sheo Kumar Shukla, etc. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. : CWJC No. 6183/2008 and its analogous cases of similarly situated persons in which it was held by this Court as follows:-

“This Court finds it difficult to hold that the petitioners are fresh appointees after 1.9.2005. The facts of the case have to be seen in its entirety. They have not entered the portals of the Government after the cut-off date. They have been there since much earlier even when relegated from their superior posts their relationship with the Government was never severed. The Government then decided to re-induct them to the posts that they were earlier holding. The continuity clearly survives.

This Court, therefore, holds that the petitioners are appointees prior to 1.9.2005 and are, therefore, covered by the G.P.F. Scheme already in existence with regard to them. They are not required to open their accounts as covered by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The State shall continue to make deductions from their G.P.F. accounts and credit the same to their benefit.

The writ application stands allowed.”

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners of the aforesaid cases were similarly situated and regularized as part of the same transaction. It is pointed out that the petitioner Sheo Kumar Shukla of the above case was finally regularized/absorbed in the regular establishment by order dated 6.12.2006 whereas the husband of the petitioner was absorbed on 1.12.2006. It is thus, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not open to the respondents to take the plea that the petitioner’s husband should be treated as a fresh appointee after 1.9.2005 or to have entered into service after the cut-off date rather as held by this Court, he should be treated as appointee prior to 1.9.2005 and covered by the GPF Scheme and not Contributory Pension Scheme. Thus, the petitioner would be clearly entitled to family pension on accou