Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 355 (PAT)

Mukta Gupta v. Union Of India

2003-03-31

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2003
Judgment 1. In this writ petition the petitioner, who retired as Assistant Teacher from minority school undisputedly covered by the Employees Pension Scheme on 31.12.2001, is aggrieved on account of non-release of her pension besides on account of nonpayment of provident fund amount for the period March, 1998 to July, 2001. 2. Learned counsel for the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has submitted that the remaining amount of provident fund of Rs. 14,710/- has been paid to the petitioner vide cheque no. 716059 dated 28.3.2003. As regards pension, learned counsel with reference to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (respondents no. 2 and 3) has submitted that the same is being, paid to the petitioner @ Rs. 265/- vide Annexure 4. As per claim of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to minimum pension amount of Rs. 600/- per month on the basis of the provisions laid down in paragraph 12 sub clause (a) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 (Annexure 3). 3. This question came up for consideration in this Court in two cases; one in the case of Ram Saran Bharti V/s. Food Corporation of India & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 14429/2001 disposed of on 18.1.2002) [ 2002(1) PLJR 732 ] and other in the case of Nanda Ram V/s. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 12538/2002 disposed of on 4.2.2003) [ 2003(2) PLJR 6 ] relying upon the earlier decisions. 4. Yesterday the matter was passed over to enable the learned counsel to seek further instructions so that the Provident Fund Commissioner may rectify his error, if any. But on receipt of instruction, learned counsel for the Provident Fund Commissioner submitted that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is bound by the clarification issued by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India. However, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Ministry of Labour vide its letter dated 10th May, 1999, contained in Annexure B to the counter affidavit, issued clarification regarding Paragraph 12 of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and according to the said clarification the petitioner is entitled to get pension only @ 265/- per month. 5. I am unable to appreciate the said submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. I am unable to appreciate the said submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. This Court in the aforementioned cases, considering the scope of Paragraph 12 of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 decided that as per provision contained in Clause (a) of sub-paragraph 5 of paragraph 12 a person is entitled for the minimum of Rs. 335/- per month and similarly under Clause (b) is entitled for Rs. 265/- per month, aggregate of which comes to Rs. 600/- per month. It has thus been held that a person under the aforementioned provision in entitled for at least Rs. 600/- per month as pension under the aforementioned Scheme. 6. It is really unfortunate that despite the aforementioned decision of this Court the respondents have not bothered to come out with compliance of the said decision and have relied upon the clarification issued by the Ministry of Labour (Annexure B). I fail to appreciate as to how Annexure B can be relied upon, when the provision of the Scheme itself is absolutely clear and on consideration of the same this Court has held that a person is entitled for minimum pension of Rs. 600/- per month. This only shows that the respondents have no respect for the principle decided by this Court which makes them liable to pay a cost of Rs. 2,000/- from their pocket. 7. The writ application is accordingly allowed with a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid by respondent no. 2 from his pocket to the petitioner within a week. Respondent no. 2 is directed to issue necessary PRO. for payment of pension to the petitioner and arrear accordingly within one week. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite order of the Provident Fund Commissioner for payment of pension even @ Rs. 265/- with 4% additional relief the Bank is not making payment of the said amount of additional relief. 9. I fail to appreciate as to how the Bank can deny payment of any amount as per sanction accorded by the Provident Fund Commissioner. In any view of the matter, the Provident Fund Commissioner (respondent no. 2) is directed to issue appropriate direction for payment of pension as per this order with any admissible additional relief within a week. 10. I fail to appreciate as to how the Bank can deny payment of any amount as per sanction accorded by the Provident Fund Commissioner. In any view of the matter, the Provident Fund Commissioner (respondent no. 2) is directed to issue appropriate direction for payment of pension as per this order with any admissible additional relief within a week. 10. In case of non-compliance of any part of this order the said respondent shall be liable to pay a further cost of Rs. 1,000/- from his pocket and the petitioner will be at liberty to file two pages affidavit for revival and for taking appropriate action.