Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 157 (UTT)

Naveen Chandra Pandey v. Union of India

2018-04-03

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. All the petitioners before this Court are the children of a deceased employee who died in harness on 19.02.2016 while he was working as class IV employee in a local educational institution known as “the All Saints’ College, Nainital”. Whereas petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are major, petitioner no. 3 is a minor and is presently studying in “St. Anthony Inter College, Jeolikote, District Nainital”, which is a charitable minority institution. The mother of the petitioners had predeceased her husband. At present, therefore, the petitioners are without their parents, and more so without any legally appointed guardian. 2. The question before this Court is as to the distribution of the Employees’ Provident Fund amount, as the father of the petitioners was covered under the E.P.F. Scheme. The total amount of Employees’ Provident Fund as on 15.02.2018 which has to be paid from the contribution of the deceased employee is Rs. 8,84,974/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Eighty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Four only). The prayer of the petitioners is that the amount may be released in their favour. 3. Learned counsel for the Employees’ Provident Fund would argue that under the Employees’ Provident Funds Schemes, 1952, which has been framed by the Central Government under the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, paragraph 70 is regarding “Accumulations of a deceased member – To whom payable.” 4. Paragraph 70 of the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 reads as under : “70. Accumulations of a deceased member – To whom payable. Paragraph 70 of the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 reads as under : “70. Accumulations of a deceased member – To whom payable. – On the death of a member before the amount standing to his credit has become payable or where the amount has become payable before payment has been made – (i) if a nomination made by the member in accordance with Paragraph 61 subsists, the amount standing to his credit in the Fund or that part thereof to which the nomination relates, shall become payable to his nominee or nominees in accordance with such nomination; or (ii) if no nomination subsists or if the nomination relates only to a part of the amount standing to his credit in his Fund, the whole amount or the part thereof to which the nomination does not relate, as the case may be, shall become payable to the members of his family in equal shares: Provided that no share shall be payable to– (a) sons who have attained majority; (b) sons of a deceased son who have attained majority (c) married daughters whose husband are alive; (d) married daughters of a deceased son whose husbands are alive; if there is any member of the family other than those specified in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d); Provided further that the widow or widows, and the child or children of a deceased son shall receive between them in equal parts only the shares which that son would have received if he had survived the member and had not attained the age of majority at the time of the member’s death. (iii) in any case, to which the provisions of clauses (i) and (ii) do not apply the whole amount shall be payable to the person legally entitled to it. Explanation.- For the purpose of this paragraph a member’s posthumous child, if born alive, shall be treated in the same way as a surviving child born before the member’s death.” 5. Under paragraph 70 of the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, on the death of a member (i.e. a member who is covered under the E.P.F. Scheme), before the amount standing to his credit has become payable, the amount can be paid to his nominee. Under paragraph 70 of the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, on the death of a member (i.e. a member who is covered under the E.P.F. Scheme), before the amount standing to his credit has become payable, the amount can be paid to his nominee. However, in case there is no nominee then it is payable to a member of his family, out of which following are barred : “(i) sons who have attained majority; (ii) sons of a deceased son who have attained majority; (iii) married daughters whose husband are alive; (iv) married daughters of a deceased son whose husbands are alive; if there is any member of the family other than those specified in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d)” 6. In view of the above provision, petitioner nos. 1 & 2 stand disqualified from getting E.P.F. amount. Regarding petitioner no. 3, however, the amount has to be paid as per para 72 (3) of the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1953. Para 72 (3) of the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 reads as under: “72. Payment of Provident Fund. (1)…… (2)…… (3) If the person to whom any amount is to be paid under this Scheme is a minor for whose estate a guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890) has been appointed, the payment shall be made to such guardian. Where no guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890) has been appointed, the payment shall be made to the guardian, if any, appointed under subparagraph (4-A) of Paragraph 61. Where no guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), or under sub-paragraph (4-A) of Paragraph 61 has been appointed, the payment shall be made to the natural guardian and in the absence of a natural guardian, to such person as the Commissioner, [where the amount not exceed [Rs. 20,000] or the Chairman of the Central Board, if the amount exceeds [Rs. 20,000] considers to be the proper person representing the minor and the receipt of such person for the amount paid shall be a sufficient discharge thereof.” 7. We have a situation here where admittedly petitioner no. 3 is eligible to receive the amount but only through a guardian, which is appointed under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. 20,000] considers to be the proper person representing the minor and the receipt of such person for the amount paid shall be a sufficient discharge thereof.” 7. We have a situation here where admittedly petitioner no. 3 is eligible to receive the amount but only through a guardian, which is appointed under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. However, in case there is no guardian appointed under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which is the case at present, and the amount exceeds Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), it is for the Chairman of the Central Board of Employees Provident Fund Organisation to appoint a person whom he considers to be a proper person representing the minor so that the amount can be received by him which subsequently can be used for the benefit of the minor. 8. Considering that petitioner no. 3 who is a minor, and is presently being looked after by a charitable institute at Nainital and it would be extremely difficult for him to approach the Chairman at Delhi, this Court directs that the Chairman of the Central Board, Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation to take a decision and appoint a person to whom the amount which is credited in favour of the deceased father of petitioner no. 3 can be given for the benefit of petitioner no. 3. It is expected that the Chairman before passing the order shall conduct an inquiry from the E.P.F. Office, Haldwani as well as from the District Magistrate, Nainital so that a person of trust can be appointed. Preferably such a person should be residing in Nainital itself. Let the decision be taken by the Chairman of the Central Board of Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. 9. The Registrar General is hereby directed to forward a copy of this order to the Chairman of the Central Board of Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation for onward compliance. 10. List this case on 08.05.2018 in the daily cause list.