The deduction of pension contribution from the salary of the deceased employee was not subject to refund if the petitioner was not entitled to Children Pension under CMPS 1998.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for a direction upon the respondent authorities to return the amount of 1.16% + 1.16% of Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme, 1971, 2% pension contribution and one special increment which was deducted for payment of pension from the salary of the deceased employee-Smt. Bashwa Devi (mother of the petitioner) who died in harness.

3. The facts relevant for disposal of the instant writ application is that one Bashwa Devi wife of Late Banbari Bedia was employee as a Piece Rated Worker in Sirka Colliery of CCL having CMPF A/C No.RMG/48-2652. Her date of appointment was 15.02.1995 and she died during her service period on 30.03.2009 after rendering 14 years of service. At this stage it is pertinent to mention here that as per the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Coal Company, the deceased employee was automatically covered under the Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 (in short CMPS 1998).

The case of the petitioner is that upon death of the employee-Bashwa Devi, her son (petitioner herein) applied for payment of Children Pension under CMPS, 1998. The pension claim was processed as per the available age records of the petitioner with the respondent-Coal Company on the basis of authentication Forms PS-3 & PS4 of CMPS, 1998 and also a School Certificate showing his age to be 21 years at the time of death of his mother in 2009. On the basis of these documents the petitioner was found eligible for children pension and for that a demand notice of Rs.1,110/- being shortfall amount of 2% pension contribution of the member under the CMPS, 1998 was issued which has also been deposited by this petitioner; the cash receipt has been enclosed with the counter affidavit.

However, when the said pension claim papers reached the Office of Respondent No.8-CMPF it was found that as per CMPF declaration Form “A” of the deceased member; the petitioner was 29 years of age at the time of death of his mother and therefore the applicant having crossed the eligible age of 25 years was not found entitled for Children Pension under CMPS-1998 and his case was rejected.

Hence, the petitioner had filed the instant writ application for refund of pension contribution which was deducted from the salary of the deceased employee along with the increments and also Rs.1110/-deposited amount by him with interest.

4. Mr. Nand Kishore Pd. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in not refunding the deducted amount towards pension contribution and one special annual increment from 30.03.2009 as well as the deposited amount of Rs.1110/-by this petitioner is not justified, inasmuch as, when it has been admitted by the respondents that petitioner is not entitled for Children Pension then the deducted amount from his mother’s salary towards pension contribution and one increment should be refunded to him as per Rule 17 of CMPS-1998.

5. Mr. D.K.Chakraverty, learned counsel for the respondent-Coal Company submits that when the claim papers was sent by the Coal Company to the Regional Commissioner Office of CMPF; they received a letter dated 20.12.2012 wherein it was informed that the case of the this petitioner has been rejected because upon verification of records it was found that the petitioner was aged about 29 years at the time of death of the member as per declaration Form “A” submitted by the member herself and no children pension can be given to a male adult who crossed 25 years of age.

He further submits that this factual aspect has never been controverted by this petitioner rather after knowing the fact that he is not entitled for Children Pension; he demanded for refund of employee’s contribution along with increment etc. which is not justified and his entire claim for refund is non-est in the eye of law.

6. Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.8-CMPF referred Clau