Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 149 (PAT)

Nanda Ram v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

2003-02-04

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2003
Judgment 1. It is submitted that the grievances of the petitioner in this writ petition are two fold; firstly he has claimed for payment of pension which is payable by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Patna (respondent no. 1) and the other is with respect to gratuity which is payable by the Life Insurance Corporation under the coverage of insurance done through the Corporation. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation has submitted that since the premium was not deposited by the Corporation after 1993, the Corporation is unable to discharge its liability to release the amount of gratuity for payment to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Corporation has also admitted that the premium could not be deposited with the Corporation from 1994 in view of the paucity of fund which, in fact, led to filing of winding up proceeding, vide Company Petition No. 5 of 1999 in this Court. 3. In view of the pendency of the said Company Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly sought liberty to raise the claim of the petitioner with respect to gratuity in the said Company Case. 4. As prayed, the petitioner is given liberty to raise the claim with respect to gratuity in the said company petition. 5. As regards the pension, the grievance of the petitioner is that although pension has been released by respondent no.1, but the amount released is at the rate of Rs. 479/- per month which is much lesser than the minimum as prescribed in paragraph 12(5) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. 6. Earlier Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, who is incharge of Legal Section, personally appeared before this Court and accepted that in view of the provision contained in sub-clause (a) and (b) of clause (5) of paragraph 12, a person is entitled for Rs. 600/- as the minimum of the amount of pension. However, he expressed difficulty in issuing sanction with respect to it in view of the calculation as provided in the Manual of Accounting Procedure of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 Part III. He further submitted that the matter has been referred to the Central Office, Delhi seeking advice for taking appropriate action. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent no. He further submitted that the matter has been referred to the Central Office, Delhi seeking advice for taking appropriate action. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent no. 1 is bent upon ignoring the decision of this Court with respect to the above given in the order dated 16.1.2002 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14429 of 2001 : [ 2002 (1) PLJR 732 ] in the case of Ram Saran Bharti V/s. Food Corporation of India and Ors. 8. On the request made by respondent no. 1, earlier the matter was passed orer on three occasions to enable him to see that the grievance of the petitioner is redressed in accordance with law, but instead of doing that, I fail to appreciate as to why he referred the matter to the Central Office. 9. I also fail to appreciate as to why respondent no. 1 should not act as per the provisions contained in clause 12(5)(a) & (b) of the Scheme itself which clearly provides that in the case of an employee who was a member of the ceased Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and attained the age of 53 years or more on 16th November, 1995, the Superannuation/retirement pension shall be equal to the aggregate of : (a) pension as determined under sub-paragraph (2) for the period of service rendered from 16th November, 1995 per month or Rs. 335 per month, whichever is more; (b) past service benefits provided in sub- paragraph (3) subject to the minimum of Rs. 500 per month provided the past service is 24 years. Provided further that if it is less than 24 years the pension payable and the past service benefits shall be proportionately lesser but subject to the minimum of Rs. 265/- per month. 10. It is not in dispute that the case of the petitioner is covered by the said provision. As such, even assuming that under sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 12, the petitioner is entitled for less amount, yet as per the provision contained in clause (a) of sub-paragrah (5) of paragraph 12, he is entitled for the minimum of Rs. 335/- per month and similarly, under sub-paragraph (b), he is entitled for Rs. 265/- per month and the aggregate of both comes to Rs. 600/- per month. 335/- per month and similarly, under sub-paragraph (b), he is entitled for Rs. 265/- per month and the aggregate of both comes to Rs. 600/- per month. Thus, it has rightly been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is at least entitled for Rs. 600/- per month as pension. 11. Despite the fact that there is no ambiguity in the said provision and the law being settled by this Court in the case of Ram Saran Bharti vs. Food Corporation of India (supra), the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (respondent no. 1) has acted in clear defiance of the same. 12. In the facts and circumstances afore mentioned, the writ application is allowed with a cost of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand) to be paid by respondent no. 1 from his pocket to the petitioner within a week. Respondent no. 1 is directed to see that the necessary PPO is issued fixing Rs. 600/- per month for payment of pension to the petitioner and arrear accordingly within one week. 13. In case of non-compliance of any part of this order, the petitioner will be at liberty to file two pages affidavit for revival of this matter and taking appropriate action.