Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 636 (GAU)

Runumi Begum v. Union of India

2017-05-23

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. Heard Mr. A. Paul, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel representing respondent Oil India Limited. 2. The appellant before us is a widow claiming family pension. Her husband was employed as a Driver in the then Burmah Oil Company (Pipeline) Ltd. at Calcutta (now Kolkata), being so appointed on 25.11.1959. On 10.08.1964 he was transferred to the Pump Station No. 5 at Narengi, Guwahati. The Pipeline Division of the erstwhile Burmah Oil Company was vested with Oil India Ltd. By virtue of the Burmah Oil Company [Acquisition of Shares of Oil India Limited and of the Undertakings in India of Assam Oil Company Limited and the Burmah Oil Company (India) Trading Limited] Act, 1981 (in short ' Act of 1981), the Union of India acquired the shares of Oil India held by the Burmah Oil Company. The shares, accordingly, stood transferred to and vested in the Central Government on and from 14.10.1981. In terms of Section 11(2) of the Act of 1981, the whole-time officers or other employees of the Oil India Limited (in short 'Company') became an officer or other employee of the Central Government or the concerned Government Company on the same terms and conditions and with the same rights to pension, gratuity and other matters as were admissible to him immediately before 14.10.1981, unless or until his employment with the Company is duly terminated or until his remuneration and conditions of service are duly altered by the Company. 3. The appellant's husband was working in the Pipeline Division of the Company and was part and parcel of the transition process occurring through the Act of 1981. He had retired from service on 31.12.1988 on attaining the age of superannuation and, thereafter, suffered demise on 17.04.2002. Consequent thereto, she had represented before the General Manager (OSD), Oil India Ltd. on 10.02.2003 for issuance of a Nominee Certificate as she had not received any pensionary benefits on account of the demise of her husband and as the same was insisted upon by the Insurance Company. Thereafter, petitioner received a sum of Rs. 86,322/-, being the amount payable as the Return on Capital (Death Claim) amount vide Cheque No. 476221 dated 16.03.2007. Years later, the appellant by letter dated 10.02.2013 represented before the Commissioner, Regional Provident Fund, Bhangagarh, Guwahati, requesting grant of family pension. Thereafter, petitioner received a sum of Rs. 86,322/-, being the amount payable as the Return on Capital (Death Claim) amount vide Cheque No. 476221 dated 16.03.2007. Years later, the appellant by letter dated 10.02.2013 represented before the Commissioner, Regional Provident Fund, Bhangagarh, Guwahati, requesting grant of family pension. As no response was forthcoming, the related writ petition i.e. WP(C) 2813/2013 was instituted. The Oil India Ltd. was arrayed as party respondent no. 5. 4. By order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.12.2013, the writ petition was dismissed. The claim for family pension was negated and while doing so the Court considered the submission made on behalf of Oil India Limited that the erstwhile Burmah Oil Company did not have facility of family pension. It was further observed that the appellant had been paid Rs. 86,322/- by way of death claim under the LIC through the Company. Also, that the deceased was never paid any pension during his life time and that he never pursued for any pension benefits. The learned Single Judge held that since pension is not admissible to the employees of the erstwhile Burmah Oil Company, as such, no relief can be granted to the appellant/writ petitioner. Aggrieved, the present appeal is laid. 5. The only issue falling for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to claim benefit of family pension. This would require travelling through the provisions of the Act of 1981 and that of the Oil India Pension Fund Rules (in short 'the Rules'), which were framed to operate the Oil India Pension Fund Trust Deed created on 30.08.1982. 6. By virtue of Section 12 of the Act of 1981, the Provident Fund, superannuation or other fund established by the specified company for the benefit of the persons employed by it stood transferred to and vested in Oil India Ltd., free from any trust that may have been constituted by the specified company. The Oil India Ltd. was required to constitute, in respect of the money and other assets transferred to it, one or more trust having similar objects as in respect of the existing trust. In strict accordance thereof, the Oil India Pension Fund Trust Deed was created and the aforesaid Rules were framed to operate the Trust. In terms of Rule 8(a) of the Rules, the appellant's husband was automatically admitted to the membership of the Oil India Pension Fund. 7. In strict accordance thereof, the Oil India Pension Fund Trust Deed was created and the aforesaid Rules were framed to operate the Trust. In terms of Rule 8(a) of the Rules, the appellant's husband was automatically admitted to the membership of the Oil India Pension Fund. 7. Rule 16 of the Rules, which provides for pension to the members and which forms the crux of the present lis, is essentially required to be reproduced. It reads as: "16. The Trustees shall, for the purpose of providing the pensions for the members pursuant to the Rules. (i) enter into a Scheme of Insurance with the Life Insurance Corporation established under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), or (ii) Accumulate the contributions in respect of members and purchase annuities from the said Life Insurance Corporation of India at the time of retirement or death of each member." 8. The Trustee i.e. the respondent Company had purchased one Master Policy from the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LICI) and for each of the eligible members of the Oil India Pension Fund, annuity was purchased. Under the Insurance Policy, the members were allowed to opt for any one of the three options made available. Either it be (I) Single Life without Return on Capital, or (II) Single Life with Return on Capital, or (III) Joint Life without Return on Capital. Simply put, it would mean that as per Option (I), an employee on superannuation will receive a higher pension until his death. As per Option (II), the employee will receive lesser pension than an Optee under (I) above, which will continue until his death and after his death, the annuity purchase amount will be returned to his nominee. As per Option (III), the employee after retirement will get lesser amount of pension during his life time and even after his death, his nominee will continue to get pension until his/her demise. 9. There is no dispute that the appellant's husband opted for Option (II) with the appellant as the sole nominee to receive the terminal benefit, being the return of purchase price, upon his death. The said option so placed on record was duly forwarded to LICI for necessary action. The relevant document is Annexure-R1 at page 34 of the appeal memo. 10. The said option so placed on record was duly forwarded to LICI for necessary action. The relevant document is Annexure-R1 at page 34 of the appeal memo. 10. It is seen and as admitted to by the appellant that her husband was receiving pension from LICI during his life time in terms of Option (II) that he had opted for. On his demise on 17.04.2002, the appellant was paid a sum of Rs. 86,322/- by way of Return on Capital payable. The benefits flowing out of Option (II) was duly discharged. Unlike Option (III), a nominee falling under Option (II) is evidently not entitled to continue receiving pension consequent upon the death of the employee concerned. In other words, a nominee under Option (II) is not entitled to claim any further money from the Fund Trust, which squarely applies to the appellant herein. 11. During the course of hearing, Mr. Sarma submitted that there is no extant policy decision/Scheme/Rules of Oil India Ltd. relating to family pension. This also extends to Executives of the Company. The purport of the submission is that in the absence of any Rules/Scheme/Policy decision, the question of depriving or denying family pension to the appellant does not arise at all. In fact, the appellant has been given a fair deal in strict accordance with the option consciously exercised by her deceased husband. 12. Mr. Paul, in his arguments, placed reliance in Subrata Sen v. Union of India, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 71 and in Pensioners' Association, Ex-Assam Oil Officers and Ors. v. Union of India, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 265 . In the former case, the petitioners therein belonged to Assam Oil Corporation Ltd. (Assam Oil Division), which was also nationalized by the Act of 1981. Challenge was made to a Notification dated 10.03.1995 whereby the Central Government provided for upward revision of pension formula in respect of those officers retiring from December, 1994 and who were covered under the same Staff Pension Scheme, as in the case of the aggrieved petitioners. The petitioners who were retirees prior to December 1994 laid challenge to the cut-off date. The Supreme Court answered in favour of the challenge by holding that the upward revision was only a revision of the existing pension scheme and was not a new scheme for payment of pension. The petitioners who were retirees prior to December 1994 laid challenge to the cut-off date. The Supreme Court answered in favour of the challenge by holding that the upward revision was only a revision of the existing pension scheme and was not a new scheme for payment of pension. Accordingly, interference was made to the Notification dated 10.03.1995 to the extent that the words "retiring from December 1994 onwards" appearing therein be deleted and consequential pensionary benefits be given to the petitioners. In the latter case also, the petitioners who are pensioners having retired from service on or before 13.10.1981 from Assam Oil Company Limited, claimed benefit of the revised Pension Scheme as made applicable to the retirees of India Oil Corporation, without any distinction or cut-off date of retirement. The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition with direction to the respondents concerned to make available the pensionary benefits to the petitioners in accordance with the pension formula of 1995 for revised pension. 13. The facts in the aforesaid two cited cases, juxtaposed with the facts in the present appeal, are altogether different. Reliance so placed is apparently misconceived and, under no circumstances, can come to the aid of the appellant. The present case is confined to the claim for family pension and determination thereof is squarely covered by the Oil India Pension Fund Rules and the option that was consciously exercised by the appellant's husband in the form of Option (II). As discussed above, the appellant is not entitled to any further sum of money from the respondents. The question of getting or being entitled to family pension does not arise at all. 14. From the foregoing, we find no merit in the present appeal, which fails and stands accordingly dismissed. The end result of the order under appeal is affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.