SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Cal) 621

High Court Of Calcutta
Amitava Lala
KARUNA BALA BERA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P.  7959  Of  2004
Decided On : 09/15/2004

Advocates Appeared:
AMIYA KUMAR CHAUDHURI, MIHIR KR.KUNDU, Tarak Dutta

The Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, is applicable to non-members of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971, and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has the authority to resolve doubts or disputes regarding its applicability.

Headnote:

FAMILY PENSION - EMPLOYEES' PENSION SCHEME, 1995 - PARAGRAPHS 6A, 12, 12A, 12L(C) - EMPLOYEES' FAMILY PENSION SCHEME, 1971 - PARAGRAPH 4 - EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952 - SECTION 2(F) - APPLICABILITY OF FAMILY PENSION SCHEME TO NON-MEMBERS - RESOLUTION OF DOUBTS BY REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner's husband, an employee, passed away in 1986 while in service. In 1994, the petitioner filed for family pension under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. The authorities denied the claim on the ground that the deceased husband was not a member of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the petitioner's husband was not a member of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971, and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to family pension under that scheme. However, the Court directed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to resolve the doubt or dispute regarding the applicability of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, to non-members like the petitioner.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's husband was a member of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971. 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to family pension under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, even though her husband was not a member of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Paragraphs 6A, 12, 12A, and 12L(C) of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, and Paragraph 4 of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971, to hold that the petitioner's husband was not a member of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971. 2. The Court relied on the decision in S. K. Mastan Bee vs. General Manager, South Central Railway and Anr. (2003) 1 SCC 184 to hold that the denial of family pension to the petitioner violated her right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. The Court held that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner had the authority to resolve doubts or disputes under Paragraph 8 of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995.

Final Decision: The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to resolve the doubt or dispute regarding the applicability of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, to non-members like the petitioner within two months from the date of communication of the order.

AMITAVA LALA, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER's husband joined in the service on 21st March, 1960. He passed away on 2nd February, 1986 while he was in service. On 3rd may, 1986 the petitioner received a gratuity and provident fund amount from the Manager of the company. On 7th December, 1988 the petitoner received deposit linked insurance amount from the Employees' Provident Fund commissioner. On 1st April, 1994 the petitioner filed form No. 20 and 10a (F. P. F.) under the respective scheme before the respondents for getting family pension. The petitioner made several representations in between 2000 to 2002 and lastly in 2004 and finding no other alternative invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court on 7th May, 2004.

( 2 ) THEREFORE, the obvious questuion arises before this Court that when the petitioner received both his gratuity and provident fund amount from his employer and also received deposited amount under insurance from the Regional provident Fund Authority, in the year 1986, the year when the petitioner's husband expired, can it be called as deferred payment on the part of the authority concerned or the management in giving the appropriate monetary relief after death of the incumbent died in harness? My answer is 'no' Therefore, the only remaining question available hereunder is whether any application for granting family pension can be allowed to be entertained in the year 1994, after eight years of death of the deceased? Even assuming for the moment that such application was filed in the year 1994 but when the petitioner became silent thereafter whether the writ petition can be allowed on that score after a period of ten years from such time?

( 3 ) PARAGRAPH 6a read with paragraph 12 under the Employees' Pension scheme, 1995 is germane for the purpose of due consideration. Paragraph 6a says that a membership of Employees' Provident Fund shall continue to such member till he is attaining the age of 58 years or he avails of the withdrawal benefit to which he is entitled under paragraph 14 of the scheme, or dies or the pension is vested to him in terms of paragraph 12 of the scheme whichever is earlier. In the instant case, the incumbent expired. Therefore, his membership under the Employees' Pension Fund ceases to take effect on his death on 2nd february, 1986. Paragraph 12 (l) (c) says that one is entitled to short service pension, if he renders eligible service of ten years or more but less than twenty years. But as per paragraph 12a option for commutation has to be made under paragraph 12 on completion of three years from the commencement of the scheme, to commute up to a maximum of one-third of his pension so as to receive hundred times the monthly pension so commuted as commuted value of pension. Balance pension will be paid on monthly basis as per option exercised under paragraph 13. This option of commutation was inserted in the Employees' pension Scheme, 1995 by the Government Order on 28th February, 1996 for giving effect from 16th March, 1996. The incumbent expired prior to the introduction of the option. According to the Learned Counsel, appearing for the respondent, petitioner's husband could have opted for joining under Employees' family Pension Scheme, 1971 within the period of six months from 1st March, 1971 as per paragraph 4 therein. However, I find from the notification, as referred thereunder, that the period of six months was notified on 1st June, 1971. Therefore, virtually three months' period was left for the purpose of giving the aforesaid option. Hence, one aspect should be considered hereunder whether fixation of the period for opting for family pension is directory or mandatory. As find that the notification was issued after expiry of three months out of six months in the scheme, 1971 and further option was introduced in 1996 under the scheme, 1995,i cannot hold that the time period for giving option under the scheme, 1971 is mandatory. If one loses the opportunity of giving option just after expir



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top