R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER-SUDHAKAR Pani is before me seeking for a certiorari to quash the order Annexure-F, dated 9th April, 2003. ( 2 ) PETITIONER was an employee of Shyam Textiles, Bangalore, which is covered by the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act') Petitioner was member of the employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. He has paid contributions towards the pension fund. Petitioner while he was in employment collapsed while working as a result of which he sustained injuries on the head and was shifted to the hospital. He was diagnosed as having suffered hemorrhage of the brain due to high blood pressure. He suffered paralysis of the right arm and leg and his speech has become slurred. Annexure-B is the discharge summary. He was thereafter referred to esi hospital for follow up. ESI Medical Officer opined that the petitioner has become permanently disabled for carrying on his employment with the employer. Petitioner was compelled to leave his employment on account of physical disablement suffered by him. He thereafter, sought for disabled employee pension in terms of the scheme. He submitted form 10-D to the respondent. Respondent thereafter wrote a letter to the Director, Health and Family Welfare Services, with a request to examine the petitioner and to issue a certificate regarding petitioner's disablement. Petitioner thereafter appeared before the Medical Board and submitted himself for medical examination and awaited the process of his claim for disabled pension by the respondent. Thereafter, he received the impugned endorsement and in the endorsement it is stated that he is not entitled for disabled pension. Aggrieved by this endorsement, petition is before me. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT has filed statement of objection. In the statement of objections it is stated that the petitioner applied for pension on the ground that he suffered permanent physical disablement. He was directed to appear before the Medical Board. Respondent received the medical report and as per the report petitioner was found not eligible for disablement pension. Copy of the relevant extract of Manual of accounting Procedure is produced at Annexure-Rl. They have also filed the medical report in terms of Annexure-R2. In Annexure-R2, it is stated that petitioner was permanently physically disabled in Cl. 8 which would read as to whether the relevant nature of disablement has resulted in permanent and total disablement. Copy of the relevant extract of Manual of accounting Procedure is produced at Annexure-Rl. They have also filed the medical report in terms of Annexure-R2. In Annexure-R2, it is stated that petitioner was permanently physically disabled in Cl. 8 which would read as to whether the relevant nature of disablement has resulted in permanent and total disablement. While answering the query No. 8, the Medical Board has stated that the petitioner has suffered right sided Hemiparesis permanent and total disablement (around 90% ). Thereafter, the respondent referred to Annexure-R3 and in Annexure-R3 it is stated in Cl. 3 that the disablement needs to be total and only in that event the scheme can be sanctioned. The argument of the respondent is that Annexure-R3 comes in the way of settlement of pension. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties in the matter. ( 5 ) PETITIONER Counsel would argue that in terms of the Scheme he is entitled for the pension in the light of the permanent disablement suffered by him in terms of the material already available. ( 6 ) PER contra, respondent Counsel would say that since he has suffered only 90% disablement in terms of the Medical Board's report, no pension can be granted in terms of Annexure-R3. ( 7 ) AFTER hearing, I have carefully perused the material on record. Admittedly I am dealing with a welfare legislation made for the benefit of the employees as a whole. The Act provides for provident fund, pension, etc. , details of which has been explained in the Scheme. Employees and the employer contribute towards the pension fund. Employees' Pension Scheme has been framed in the year 1995. The said scheme defines the words "permanent total disablement" in terms of para 2 (1) (xvi) which would read as under:"permanent total disablement" means such disablement of permanent nature as incapacitates an employee for all work which he/she was capable of performing at the time of disablement, regardless whether such disablement is sustained in the course of employment or otherwise". Para 15 (1) provides for benefit on permanent and total disablement during his service. Para 15 (1) provides for benefit on permanent and total disablement during his service. In the matter of pension in the case of permanent total disablement what is required to be noticed is as to whether such disablement of permanent nature incapacitates an employee for all work which he/she was capable of performing at the time of disablement regardless whether such disablement is sustained in the course of employment or otherwise. ( 8 ) WHILE considering the benefit of service, what has to be noticed is the permanent and total disablement in terms of Para 2 (l) (xvi) of the scheme. The authorities have to grant pension in terms of Para 15. Material facts would show that the petitioner was subjected to medical examination. In terms of Para 15 (3), the respondent has made a reference in terms of Annexure-R2. While referring respondent has stated that the petitioner has suffered right sided Hemiparesis permanent and total disablement (around 90% ). They have also stated in Para 13 while answering query No. 13 which incidentally is a report after referring to Paras 2 (l) (xvii) and 15 (3 ). On seeing this report, the medical Board has opined that the petitioner has suffered permanent total disablement. When the injury sustained by the petitioner confirms the disablement in terms of the Medical report under Para 15 (3) it is not open to the respondent to deny the benefit in the light of Annexure-R3, annexure-R3 cannot overwrite Para 2 (l) (xvi) of the Act. Any circular or clarification has to be in consonance with the Scheme as it cannot override the Scheme itself. Therefore, respondents are not justified in denying the pension where the total disablement is around 90% in the light of Annexure-R3. ( 9 ) IN the given circumstances, I deem it proper to issue a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner under Para 2 (1) (xvi) read with Para 15 (3) and provide the benefits within eight weeks from the date of this order. I further deem it proper to issue a direction to the respondent-Commissioner to reconsider R. 3 and provide disablement benefit strictly in consonance with the Scheme and not override the scheme in terms of the order. ( 10 ) BEFORE concluding, this Court has to notice that this Scheme is meant for the betterment and welfare of the employees. I further deem it proper to issue a direction to the respondent-Commissioner to reconsider R. 3 and provide disablement benefit strictly in consonance with the Scheme and not override the scheme in terms of the order. ( 10 ) BEFORE concluding, this Court has to notice that this Scheme is meant for the betterment and welfare of the employees. A beneficial interpretation has to be given. The respondent unfortunately has chosen to deny the benefit in terms of the Scheme. It is hoped that at least now the respondent would take note of the object of the Scheme and not deny the statutory pension in terms of the Scheme. In the result, this petition succeeds. Petitioner is entitled for costs of rs. 2,000/- payable by the respondent. --- *** --- .