Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 745 (RAJ)

Prabhu Dayal Gupta v. Food Corporation of India

2000-07-03

SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has approached this court with the following prayer - (i) to quash and set aside the order dated Feb. 28, 1992 whereby petitioner's request for terminal and other retirement benefits as admissible to the Central Government Employees was rejected. (ii) to issue directions to treat the option exercised by the petitioner as final and grant him pension and other retiral benefits in accordance with the terms of option. (iii) alternatively to treat the option exercised by the petitioner on Feb. 1, 1988 as valid option and all pensionary and other retiral benefits be granted to the petitioner. 2. Earlier writ petition of the petitioner bearing No. 3247 of 1989 was disposed of by this court on April 5, 1991 and the respondents were directed to decide the grievances of the petitioner incorporated in para 10 of the said writ petition within four months. In that writ petition the petitioner had prayed to decide his pension's case in accordance with the terms of option exercised by him. The respondents after sought (sic. seeking) extension of time limit rejected the claim of the petitioner for retiral benefits as admissible to the employees of central Government vide order dated Feb. 28, 1992. The petitioner has impugned this order in the instant writ petition. 3. It was contested on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order dated Feb. 28, 1992 was passed by Regional Manager FCI who was not legally competent to pass it. The order ought to have been passed by the Ministry of Food, Government of India but file of petitioner's case was not sent there. The petitioner never exercised any option for C.P.F. He was transferred from food Department to F.C.I. on Jan. 1, 1966 and treating him an employee who had opted for pension, his G.P.F. was being regularly deducted. Thus looking from all angles the petitioner is entitled to all pensionary and retiral benefits in accordance with the options exercised by him i.e. on the pay scale and other allowances of Corporation with terminal benefits available to Central Government servants. The petitioner has placed copy of reply filed by the respondents in the earlier writ petition (Ex. 25) to show that the respondents had admitted this fact that the petitioner had exercised option. The petitioner was allotted new G.P.F. number treating him as an employee who opted for pensionary benefits. 4. The petitioner has placed copy of reply filed by the respondents in the earlier writ petition (Ex. 25) to show that the respondents had admitted this fact that the petitioner had exercised option. The petitioner was allotted new G.P.F. number treating him as an employee who opted for pensionary benefits. 4. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in para 5 of their reply averred as under - "...It is however, submitted that the petitioner submitted a letter dated 1.2.1988 to the District Manager along with his option form duly filled, and said four copies of the option form were duly forwarded to the Headquarters at New Delhi along with entire service particulars of the petitioner for taking further necessary action in this regard." The respondents in other paras of the reply denied the averments of the petitioner and prayed that writ petition be dismissed.5-6. In the rejoinder the petitioner stated that throughout his service career G.PF. was deducted from his salary treating him an employee who has opted for pension. The functionaries of the respondents who acted negligently made attempt to justify their action and passed an order dated 27.10.97/ 3.1.98 by which the petitioner was admitted as member of C.PF. after his retirement whereas the petitioner was allotted G.P.F. No. 2210 throughout his service period.7. Proviso (ii) of section 12 A(4A) (b) of the Food Corporation's (Amendment) Act 1977 (for short the Act) provides that where an employee does not exercise the option as required by subsection (4) within six months, the option already exercised by him shall be deemed to have been validly exercised by him under sub-section (4). As already stated the petitioner had already exercised the option on Feb. 1, 1988 and this fact is not in dispute, therefore in view of proviso (ii) of section 12 A(4A) (b) of the Act it will be deemed that the petitioner had validly exercised the option under sub-section (4). While passing the impugned order dated Feb. 28, 1992 the respondent F.C.I. did not consider the afore quoted legal provision and illegally observed that the petitioner was not entitled to terminal and other retirement benefits as he failed to exercise the option. This fact is also not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner was allotted G.P.F. No. 2210 and throughout his service period G.P.F. was deducted from his salary treating him an employee who had opted for pension. This fact is also not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner was allotted G.P.F. No. 2210 and throughout his service period G.P.F. was deducted from his salary treating him an employee who had opted for pension. It is unfortunate that during the pendency of writ petition the petitioner was admitted as member of C.P.F. by the functionaries of the respondents. The directions of this court issued on April 5, 1991 in writ petition No. 3247/1989 were not properly complied with by the respondents and the petitioner was unnecessary dragged toward litigation.8. In view of what I have discussed hereinabove I have no option but to accept the writ petition and it is accordingly allowed. the impugned order dated Feb. 28, 1992 stands quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to grant pensionary and other retiral benefits to the petitioner as admissible to the Central Government employees within two months from today. The petitioner shall also be entitled to get interest on the amount due at the rate of 18% per annum as well as costs of the writ petition, which is quantified as Rs. 5000/--Writ Petition Allowed. *******