JUDGMENT : B.K. Patel, J. - In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India prayer has been made for issuance of writ of mandamus directing opposite party No. 1 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhubaneswar to disburse current and arrear monthly pension of the Petitioner w.e.f. 19.5.2001 since when he became invalidated along with 18 per cent interest incurred with Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 (for short 'the Scheme'. S.I Patra v. Regional Provident Fund Commi. (B.K. Patel, J.) 2. Admittedly, Petitioner was working as Security Personnel with opposite party No. 2 -Winner Security Services (Orissa) Pvt. Ltd., B.J.B. Nagar, Tankapani Road, Bhubaneswar and was holding EPF account No. 04/4025/2156 from 1.4.1995 to 19.5.2001. It is not disputed that Petitioner was admitted into S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack for treatment of CVA Rt. Hemoplegia (Infarction) on 19.5.2001 and was discharged on 22..5.2001. 3. Petitioner's case is that while discharging duties he met with an accident on 19.5.2001 sustaining severe bodily injury which led him to COMA. In spite of treatment in S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttak till 22.5.2001, he became permanently disable. While discharging the Petitioner from the hospital on 22.5.2001 under discharge certificate at Annexure-1, he was advised for physiotherapy and nursing care. As the Petitioner's entire right side body was paralysed, he applied for pension under the Scheme before opposite party No. 1. On receipt of application opposite party No. 1 sent the Petitioner to the Medical Board for examination with regard to his disability. Upon examination by the Medical Board certificate at Annexure-2 was issued indicating that Petitioner has become permanently incapacitated for further employment. However, despite representations including representation dated 27.9.2008 at Annexure-3, opposite party No. 1 has failed to disburse pension under the Scheme to the Petitioner. Opposite party No. 1 has filed a counter taking the stand that Petitioner is not entitled to pension under paragraph-15 of the Scheme which entitles an employee to pension if he has become permanently and totally disabled. It has been averred that in the certificate of the medical board under Annexure-3 it has been indicated that the Petitioner was found to have incurred only 50 per cent disability of permanent nature. 4. It has been averred that in the certificate of the medical board under Annexure-3 it has been indicated that the Petitioner was found to have incurred only 50 per cent disability of permanent nature. 4. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that discharge certificate of S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack goes to establish that Petitioner was under treatment for CVA Rt. Hemoplegia (Infarction) which means that the entire right side body was paralysed. In the certificate at Annexure-2 it has been pointed out that Petitioner has become permanently incapacitated for further employment. Medical Board is the competent authority to certify regarding nature of disability. In the certificate under Annexure-2 there is an indication that C.D.M.O., Jagatsinghpur had issued a certificate to the effect that Petitioner had sustained 50 per cent disability of permanent nature. However, the Medical Board found that Petitioner was permanently incapacitated for the further employment. In such circumstances, the stand of the opposite party No. 1 to the effect that Medical Board found the Petitioner to have incurred 50 per cent disability is not correct. Paragraph-15 of the Scheme provides that an employee, who is permanently and totally disabled during employment shall be entitled to pension under the Scheme. Under the Scheme the term "permanent total disablement" has been defined to mean such disablement of permanent nature as incapacitates an employee for all work which he/she was capable of performing at the time of disablement. Opposite party No. 1 is, therefore, obliged to pay pension under the Scheme to the Petitioner. 5. Learned Counsel for the opposite party in course of his argument reiterated the stand taken in the counter affidavit. He would argue that Annexure-2 does not indicate that Petitioner incurred total and permanent disability. 6. The Scheme has been framed by the Central Government in exercise of power conferred u/s 6-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short "the Act') which a price of social welfare legislation for the benefits of persons employed in factories and others establishments. Authorities under the Act must keep the object of the Act while performing their function. The Scheme is a means to ensure social justice to the employees. Therefore, instead of being shacked and guided by an attitude of bureaucratic rigidity, authorities like opposite party No. 1 are required to be liberal and compassionate. Authorities under the Act must keep the object of the Act while performing their function. The Scheme is a means to ensure social justice to the employees. Therefore, instead of being shacked and guided by an attitude of bureaucratic rigidity, authorities like opposite party No. 1 are required to be liberal and compassionate. However, it is evident from the materials on record that the Petitioner's claim for pension has been dealt with in a callous manner mechanically in utter disregard to the provisions under the Scheme itself. 7. It has not been denied that medical examination by the Medical Board was conducted at the instance of opposite party No. 1. Column Nos. 9 and 10 of the certificate of the Board read: 9. Whether the Member 50% of disability is permanentis permanently and nature as per Handicapped totally unfit for Certificate issued by C.D.M.O., employment: Jagatsinghpur. 10. Whether: Incapacitated for further permanent/total employment. disablement incapacitated the Member employee for all work which he/she was capable of performing at the time of disablement 8. Thus, there is no scope for opposite party No. 1 to urge that it was the Board which had certified the Petitioner to have incurred 50 per cent disability of permanent nature. On the other hand, Medical Board has S. Patra v. Regional Provident Fund Commi.(B.K. Patel, J.)certified in no uncertain terms that Petitioner has sustained permanent disablement which has totally incapacitated him for further employment. 9. Paragraph 15 of the Scheme reads: 15. Benefits on permanent and total disablement during the service: (1) A member, who is permanently and totally disabled during employment shall be entitled to pension as admissible under sub-paragraphs (2) to (5) of paragraph 12, as the case may be, subject to a minimum of Rs. 250 per month notwithstanding the fact that he/she has not rendered the pensionable service entitling him/her to pension under paragraph 12 provided that he/she has made at least one month's contribution to the Pension Fund. (2) The monthly members pension in such case shall be payable from the date following the date of permanent total disablement and shall be tenable for the life time of the member. (2) The monthly members pension in such case shall be payable from the date following the date of permanent total disablement and shall be tenable for the life time of the member. (3) A member applying for benefits under this paragraph shall be required to undergo such medical examination as may be prescribed by the Central Board to determine whether or not he or she is permanently and totally unfit for the employment which he or she was doing at the time of such disablement. The term "permanent total disablement" under the Scheme has been defined at paragraph 2 (xvi). It reads::2.(xvi). "Permanent total disablement" means such disablement of permanent nature as incapacitates as 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. 10 .pon receipt of Petitioner's application for benefit of pension he was required to undergo medical examination under paragraph 15 (3) of the Scheme by opposite party No. 1. The Board has certified that the Petitioner has become permanent incapacitated for any further employment. In such circumstances, Petitioner has incurred "permanent total disablement" within the meaning of Scheme and is entitled to pension in view of provision under paragraph 15 of the Scheme. 11. Therefore, opposite party No. 1 is directed to disburse pension to the Petitioner from the date following the date of disablement in accordance with paragraph 15 of the Scheme within a period of thirty days from today failing which arrear pension amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum till the date of payment. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Writ petition disposed of.