Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 73 (RAJ)

Laxman Sindhi v. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

2005-01-10

GOVIND MATHUR, Y.R.MEENA

body2005
Judgment Y.R. Meena, Actg. C.J.- The petitioner was appointed as work-charged employee in the erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board with effect from 210.1965. Thereafter, he was promoted to various posts. However, due to his ill-health the petitioner sought voluntary retirement with effect from 30.09.1999 on completion of 20 years of service. His application for voluntary retirement was accepted and his papers were prepared for the retiral benefits. His papers were also sent to the Pension Section. An objection was raised by the Pension Department that the petitioner never opted for the G.P.F. and he was not a member of the G.P.F. account nor he has opted for the pension. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents contending that when the petitioner opted for the G.P.F. account he was also eligible for pension. 2. The case of the petitioner is that as per Annex. 9 deductions were made in his G.P.F. account and as per his office record he has contributed in the G.P.F. account and his G.P.F. account number is 13196. On verification, it was found that the G.P.F. A/c No. 13196 belonged to one Peer Singh and not to the petitioner. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding that no evidence was produced by the petitioner that he has opted for the G.P.F. contribution nor there is record except the letter of the Assistant Engineer that petitioner has contributed in the G.P.F. account. The case of the department is that the petitioner has contributed in the C.P.F. Account and the employer department has also contributed in the account. His C.P.F. A/c number is 13190. However, the petitioner did not opt for the G.P.F. and, therefore, he is not entitled to the pension. 3. The pertinent question for our consideration is whether the petitioner is G.P.F. A/c holder or not. This aspect has been considered by the learned Single Judge and he has found that the petitioner never opted for the G.P.F. scheme. The learned Single Judge also found that the G.P.F. account number 13196 is of one Peer Singh and not of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he has given his option and that was sent by Annex.-9 vide letter dated 07.07.1996 as per UPC. The learned Single Judge also found that the G.P.F. account number 13196 is of one Peer Singh and not of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he has given his option and that was sent by Annex.-9 vide letter dated 07.07.1996 as per UPC. The learned Single Judge has dealt with this factual aspect in para 7 of the order as follows: "From the side of the petitioner, there is no doubt a reference is made to para 2 of the letter Annex.9 where it was stated that option form of the petitioner was sent vide letter dated 07.07.1996, as per UPC register record, but for that there is a categorical reply of the respondents that on detailed search, such option form of the petitioner was not found in the office of the competent authority (Chief Accounts Officer (P&F), Rajasthan Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Jaipur) and even the copy of the letter dated 07.07.1996 alongwith it option form of the petitioner was sent, itself was not received in the office of the competent authority and thus, when the option form of the petitioner was not received by the competent authority, no question of accepting the option form of the petitioner by the competent authority arises. Furthermore, the copy of the letter dated 07.07.1996 is not available even in the office record of the respondent No. 3 Assistant Engineer (O&M). Apart from this, the petitioner has also not filed the copy of the option form for pensionary benefits as well as the copy of the letter dated 07.07.1996 by which his option form was sent to the competent authority." 4. So far as the allotment of G.P.F. account No. 13196 is concerned that G.P.F. A/c belonged to one Peer Singh. As per the report of the department, it cannot be said that the petitioner opted for the .G.P.F. scheme. However, some doubt has been raised that when the petitioner has contributed in the .G.P.F. account and he was given the impression that he was contributing in the G.P.F. account though he was not knowing the G.P.F. A/c number. 5. In the case of C.P.F. Scheme the employer also has to contribute its share in the account of the employee. In the additional affidavit, C.P.F. Contribution from the year 1993-94 to 2003-04 has been shown. 5. In the case of C.P.F. Scheme the employer also has to contribute its share in the account of the employee. In the additional affidavit, C.P.F. Contribution from the year 1993-94 to 2003-04 has been shown. But, for some months the contribution of the petitioner as well as the employer has been shown as zero. Though the petitioner could not prove that he has opted for the G.P.F. scheme but the fact cannot be ignored that if any amount has been contributed in the C.P.F. account the employer also has to contribute in the account of the petitioner-employee. Thus the department has to prove that the department has contributed in the employees C.P.F. account. 6. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we direct the respondents to verify the entire record from the year 1995-96 and consider whether the Government has contributed in the account of the petitioner as required under the C.P.F. Scheme, if as per record of the petitioner, after his contribution in the P.F. account the Government has not contributed its share in that case the contribution made by the petitioner be treated as contribution in the G.P.F. account and shall thereafter proceed accordingly. The entire exercise including payment of the amounts thus becoming due shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.