Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1233 (PAT)

Chandrika Mochi v. Food Corporation Of India

2002-11-15

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2002
Judgment 1. In this writ petition, the prayer is to quash office orders, vide Reference No. Estt. 39/1(23)/C.Mochi/2001 dated 19.12.2001 and vide Reference No. Estt. PF (IV)/900/99/1987 dated 10/11.1.2002, as contained in Annexures 5 and 6 respectively, and for issuance of direction to the respondents to make the payment of retirement benefits on the basis of the Central Government terminal benefits. 2. In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Watchman on 13.7.1959 under the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Department of Food, Government of India and was posted at Mokamah, Patna.The Food Corporation of India was established vide Act 37 of 1964 with effect from 1.1.1965 and thereafter the service of the petitioner was transferred to the Corporation. In terms of section 12A of the Food Corporation Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Corporation issued letter to the petitioner for exercising his option under subclause (4) of section 12A of the Act (Annexure 1). 3. It is claimed that on receipt of the said letter the petitioner gave his option in proper format provided to him and opted for the leave, provident fund, retirement and other terminal benefits admissible to the employees of the Central Government in accordance with the rules and the order of the Central Government, as amended from time to time. On receipt of option, his service along with others was finally transferred to the Corporation with effect from 1.3.1969. 4. The District Manager, Sambhalpur (Orissa) made an entry of the said transfer to the Corporation in the service book of the petitioner and also mentioned therein that vide Gazette Notification No. 52/21/ 68/FC-lll (E-2) Vol IV dated 7.8.1974 the petitioner opted for G.P.F. A photo copy of the said service book has been annexed as Annexure 3. 5. The petitioner superannuated from the post of Stitcher of the Corporation on 31.1.2001 while posted under the District Manager, Gaya. The District Manager, Gaya, vide letter dated 24.2.2001 forwarded the pensionary claim of the petitioner to the Deputy Manager (Pension), Patna (respondent no.2) for finalisation of his pension on the basis of the Central Government terminal benefits. 5. The petitioner superannuated from the post of Stitcher of the Corporation on 31.1.2001 while posted under the District Manager, Gaya. The District Manager, Gaya, vide letter dated 24.2.2001 forwarded the pensionary claim of the petitioner to the Deputy Manager (Pension), Patna (respondent no.2) for finalisation of his pension on the basis of the Central Government terminal benefits. However, the District Manager in his letter pointed out that the option for terminal benefits under section 12A of the Act was not available but he clearly stated that in the service book entry has been made showing that the petitioner finally was transferred to F.C.I, with effect from 1.3.1969 vide aforesaid Gazette Notification dated 7.8.1974 and opted for G.P.F. 6. The Regional Manager, Patna (respondent no.4) after almost six months forwarded the pension papers to the Deputy Manager (Pension) (respondent no.2) for finalisation of terminal benefits reiterating the same facts. However, in view of the letter of the Deputy Manager, Personnel, Zonal Office, Kolkata (respondent no.2), the petitioner was communicated that it was desired that his case be finalised under the Corporation terminal benefit, vide Annexure 5 and the same was informed by the District Manager, Gaya on 10.1.2002, vide Annexure 6. 7. Despite service of notice on the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation long back on 7.8.2002, no counter affidavit has been filed. 8. However, Mr. Tekriwal, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation took a stand that Pay & Accounts Officer, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, 5 Esplanade East, Kolkata is the competent authority to decide the matter and, accordingly, vide order dated 28.10.2002, learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to add the said authority as respondent no.6. 9. Mr. Shahi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6 on written instruction, a copy of which has been produced by him, submitted that there was no decision of the Pay & Accounts Office conveyed to the Corporation Office at Patna about the denial of terminal benefits as admissible to the Central Government employees except that as it was reported that it is a case of doubtful nature, a suggestion was made for referring the case to the Bureau of Public Enterprises as laid down in CCS (Pension) Rules under Appendix 12 Sub Para (6) 9. He further submitted that, in fact, the Corporation is the final authority to decide the matter. 10. He further submitted that, in fact, the Corporation is the final authority to decide the matter. 10. Yesterday, this matter was adjourned for producing final decision, but today learned counsel for the Corporation has produced a letter written by the Joint Manager (Personnel) to the Manager, Food Corporation of India, Barakhamna Lane, New Delhi for referring the matter to the Bureau of Public Enterprises. The copy of the said letter has been kept on the record. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondent Corporation is wholly arbitrary and mala fide just to keep the petitioner deprived of his pensionary dues now for almost two years since his retirement on 31.1.2001. It is submitted that on the face of entry fh the history card and the service book, of which the Corporation is the custodian, there cannot be any justification to make it doubtful case and refer the matter to the Bureau of Public Enterprises. According to the learned counsel, this has been done only to delay the matter as the petitioner has not been able to meet the demand. 12. I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is really unfortunate that despite the entry in the history card and the service book, which is not disputed by the respondent Corporation, a request has been made by the Joint Manager, Personnel to refer the matter to the Bureau of Public Enterprises for necessary advice/ instruction. Corporation is the custodian of records, including service books, option etc. Thus, there being no dispute that the entry in the history card and service book made long back shows that the petitioner exercised the option, there cannot be any justification for keeping the petitioner deprived of his pensionary dues on such flimsy ground. This only depicts the mala fide attitude of the office of the Corporation. 13. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) and the orders, contained in Annexures 5 and 6, are quashed. The respondents are directed to release the pensionary benefits of the petitioner on the basis of the Central Government Terminal Benefits within a week and the petitioner must be paid the same along with the above mentioned cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) and the orders, contained in Annexures 5 and 6, are quashed. The respondents are directed to release the pensionary benefits of the petitioner on the basis of the Central Government Terminal Benefits within a week and the petitioner must be paid the same along with the above mentioned cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) within the same time, failing which the petitioner will be at liberty to file two pages affidavit for taking appropriate action against the erring person. The amount of cost shall be recovered from the person found responsible for creating confusion and causing delay.