An employee must opt for the Family Pension Scheme within the statutory period to be eligible for benefits under the Employees’ Pension Scheme; failure to do so negates any claim for pension.

JUDGMENT :

(A.S. Supehia, J.)

1. Admit. Mr. Yogen N.Pandya, learned advocate waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent no.1 and Ms. E.Shailaja, learned advocate waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent no.2. By consent, of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

2. The present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent emanates from the judgment dated 29.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking regular pension from the respondent no.1 – Amreli Jilla Madhyasth Cooperative Bank.

3. It is the case of the appellant that he is entitled to regular pension after he reached the age of superannuation on 31.03.2004. The appellant was appointed in the year 1966 as a Steno-cum-Junior in the respondent Bank. During the intervening period, on 26.11.1999, he was terminated from services and ultimately, he succeeded before this Court and his termination was set aside by the judgment and order dated 26.12.2019 passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1174 of 2015. Thus, it appears that thereafter, he claimed regular pension from the respondent Bank, after the respondent Bank had paid all his retiral dues to the tune of Rs.10,39,663/-, out of which Rs.2,38,285/- was paid towards gratuity along with interest and leave encashment of Rs.36,546/- was also paid. The Bank also paid 30% back wages as directed by this Court, which comes to Rs.2,38,285/-. The respondent Bank has also paid his provident fund contribution from the month of December, 1999 till March, 2004. It appears that by the communication dated 01.02.2020, the appellant requested the Bank to pay pension as per the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. Since, the respondents did not pay the pension, the appellant was constrained to file the captioned writ petition, which was rejected by the learned Single Judge.

4. At the outset, learned advocate Ms. Nasrin N.Shaikh has submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in rejecting the writ petition claiming regular pension, as the respondent was contributing provident fund as per the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952. In support of her submission, she has placed reliance on the receipt/balance of 1993 and 1994.

5. While placing reliance on the provisions of Paragraph No.6 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, it is submitted that the appellant became entitled to the Employees’ Pension Scheme, since the provident fund contribution was deducted by the respondent Bank. Learned advocate Ms. Shaikh has further placed reliance on the communication dated 16.08.1981 filed by the appellant and submitted that the appellant had categorically stated that he shall be considered as a member of the Employees’ Family Pension Scheme, 1971. She has also referred to the provisions of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, more particularly paragraph Nos.7 and 17, and thus, it is urged that the learned Single Judge fell in error in not appreciating the correct facts as well as the provisions of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, and the respondent may be directed to grant regular pension to the appellant.

6. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. E.Shailaja appearing for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the entire case of the appellant is premised on the Employees’ Family Pension Scheme, 1971, which he opted on 16.08.1981 i.e. after the statutory period of six months, as provided in Paragraph No. 4(2) of 1952 Scheme. She has submitted that as per the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, more particularly paragraph No.26, in case any investment is made by the employee in Family Pension Fund Scheme, the same would get automatically deposited/converted into Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 and since the appellant was not the member of the Family Pension Scheme of 1971, as he did not opt within the statutory period, he cannot be conferred pension from the co