Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 752
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Kardak Ete, J.
Rita Chhetry, W/O Late Gobinda Bahadur Chhetry – Petitioner
Versus
The Employees Provident Fund Organization Represented By Its Regional Pf Commissioner and ors. – Respondents
WP(C) 3536 of 2022
Decided On : 03-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S Islam, Mr A Hawari, Mr B K Mishra
An employee is not eligible for Employees Deposit Linked Insurance benefits if they are not in service at the time of death, as established by attendance records.
Headnote:(A) Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Section 2(f) - Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme Benefits - Rejection of claim due to erroneous termination date - Deceased had attended duty until 07.12.2019 but died on 10.12.2019 - Claim dismissed as death occurred post-resignation. (Paras 2, 11, 19)
(B) Eligibility for Benefits - An employee must be in service at the time of death to claim insurance benefits under EDLI, which establishes a clear determination for eligibility based on duty attendance. (Paras 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner's husband died unexpectedly while employed but was deemed to have left service on 07.12.2019, according to employer records. The employer later clarified this as a mistake after his death.
Findings of Court:
The deceased was considered not to be an employee at the time of death. The Court upheld the denial of EDLI benefits.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the deceased was an employee at the time of death despite the circumstances leading to his absence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the individual was not an employee at death as per the statutory definition, thus not entitled to EDLI benefits.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eligibility for edli benefits (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. claim rejection arguments (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. court's contextual analysis (Para 14 , 15 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. employee status and the definition as per the law. (Para 16) |
| 5. legal definition of employee (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. writ petition dismissal (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
Kardak Ete, J.
Heard Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.K.Roy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3. None appeared for respondent No. 4.
2. The challenge made in this writ petition is to the impugned communication dated 23.08.2021 issued by the Public Relation Officer, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Tinsukia, Assam to the M/s C.M. HO & Co., Makum Junction, Makum, Tinsukia, whereby, the deceased husband of the petitioner is held to be not eligible for Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme Benefits (herein after EDLI Benefits in short) as he had died after resignation and the reason for leaving service is mentioned as “Death away from services”.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that her husband Late Gobinda Bahadur Chhetry, who was an employee of M/s C.M. HO & Co., a private company deals with manufacturing of Tea factory machines, had died on 10.12.2019 while in service. At the time of his death the husband of the petitioner was discharging his duty as Factory Manager. The deceased husband of the petitioner joined his duty on 01.12.1987 and therefore, his due retirement was on 09.01.2022.
4. The petitioner claims that her husband attended his office on 07.12.2019 and 08.12.2019 was the Sunday. On 09.12.2019 and 10.12.2019, the office was closed due to CAA protest and on 10.12.2019, the husband of the petitioner has suddenly expired. It is contended that the petitioner’s husband never resigned from his service during his lifetime, therefore, the petitioner and other legal heirs of her husband are entitled to all the service benefits including the EDLI benefits from Employees Provident Fund Organization.
5. The petitioner after the death of her husband submitted the composite claim form SIF (EDLI) in the office of M/s C.M. HO & Co., and accordingly, the application was forwarded to the office of the Assistant PF Commissioner, Sub- Regional Office, Tinsukia, Assam enclosing all the relevant documents for release of the Insurance benefits claim from the office of the Employee’s Provident Fund Organization.
6. It is contended that while forwarding the claim form of the petitioner, the office of M/s C.M. HO & Co. had inadvertently made a mistake that the petitioner’s deceased husband left his service on 07.12.2019 and subsequently, the same was clarified vide letter dated 03.07.2020, 26.09.2020 and 26.02.2021 by stating that reflecting the date of leaving of the petitioner’s husband from his service on 07.12.2019 was a mistake.
7. It is contended that the respondent authority without considering such fact of an inadvertent mistake committed by the office of M/s C.M. HO & Co. has issued the impugned letter dated 23.08.2021, whereby, the petitioner husband is held not eligible for EDLI benefits. Therefore, the rejection of the claim of EDLI benefits by the petitioner in respect of her deceased husband is illegal.
8. Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner had died while he was in service on 10.12.2019 and on 08.12.2019 being Sunday and on 09.12.2019 and 10.12.2019 being the Assam Bandh due to CAA protest, the rejection of the claim of EDLI benefits on the ground that the husband of the petitioner had died after resignation and reason for leaving service as “Death away from Services” is illegal.
9. Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel submits that the petitioner being the wife of Late Gobinda Bahadur Chhetry, who was an employee of M/s C.M. HO & Co. at the time of his death on 10.12.2019, is entitled to the EDLI benefits. Therefore, he su
