RATNAMMA Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS WRIT PETITION THOUGH LISTED FOR ORDERS, WITH THE CONSENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE PARTIES, IT IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN POSTED FOR FINAL DISPOSAL AND HEARD THEM ACCORDINGLY.

(2.) THE FACTS LEADING TO THIS WRIT PETITION ARE NEITHER IN CONTROVERSY NOR DEBATED. HOWEVER, THE FACTS ARE BRIEFLY SET OUT BELOW IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES AS TO BOW THE 'RECKONABLE SERVICE' IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD. ONE K.ESHWARAPPA WAS WORKING AS FIELD ASSISTANT IN VANIVILAS CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY-THE THIRD RESPONDENT HEREIN, HAVING JOINED SERVICE ON 1-5-1972. DUE TO SHORTAGE OF RAW-MATERIALS, THIRD RESPONDENT LAID OFF THE SERVICES OF THE EMPLOYEES INCLUDING THE SAID ESHWARAPPA FROM 3-4-1985. DURING THE PERIOD OF LAY-OFF THE SAID ESHWARAPPA-THE HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER DIED ON 14-7-1988, THE PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT HER HUSBAND WAS A SUBSCRIBER TO THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND AND FAMILY PENSION FUND. AS SUCH, SHE WAS ENTITLED LO GET FAMILY PENSION ON ACCOUNT OF DEATH OF HER HUSBAND. SHE APPLIED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR PAYMENT OF FAMILY PENSION BENEFITS. THE SECOND, RESPONDENT BY HIS LETTER DATED 1990 CALLED UPON THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO FURNISH CERTAIN INFORMATION REGARDING HIM OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF FAMILY PENSION FUND OF HER LATE HUSBAND K. SHWARAPPA. ACCORDINGLY, THIRD RESPONDENT SUBMITTED RELEVANT FORMS GIVING INFORMATION. HOWEVER, THE SECOND RESPONDENT BY LETTER DATED 12-7-1990 AGAIN CALLED UPON THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO FURNISH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING LAY-OFF OF THE HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER WITH EFFECT FROM 3-4-1985. IN RESPONSE, THE THIRD RESPONDENT CLARIFIED THAT SERVICE OF LATE K. ESHWARAPPA WAS LAID OFF WITH EFFECT FROM 3-4-1985. IT WAS FURTHER CLARIFIED, THAT DURING LAY-OFF, THERE WAS ONLY TEMPORARY CESSATION OF WORK AND THERE WAS NO TERMINATION OF THE SERVICE. THUS, THE THIRD RESPONDENT INFORMED THE SECOND RESPONDENT THAT LATE K. ESHWARAPPA HAD PUT IN RECKONABLE SERVICE AS DEFINED IN PARA 2(F) OF THE EMPLOYEES' FAMILY PENSION SCHEME, 1971 (FOR SHORT THE 'SCHEME'). THEREAFTER, THE SECOND RESPONDENT CALLED UPON THE PETITIONER TO SUBMIT FORM NO. 11 (FPF) SO AS TO ENABLE THEM TO RELEASE PAYMENT. FINALLY, UNDER THE LETTER DATED 28-3-1991/5-4-1991 (ANNEXURE-D) THE SECOND RESPONDENT RELEASED THE FAMILY PENSION IN RESPECT OF LATE K. ESHWARAPPA. THE PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE SECOND RESPONDENT WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS ADDRESSED THE IMPUGNED LETTER DATED 27-6-1991 (ANNEXURE-E) TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS (POSTAL), III FLOOR, G.P.O. BUILDING, BANGALORE, COPY OF WHICH WAS SENT TO THE PETITIONER. UNDER THE SAID LETTER THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS (POSTAL) WAS DIRECTED TO RETURN THE CONNECTED DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH BOTH HALVES OF PENSION PAYMENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF SMT RATNAMMA STATING THAT THE CLAIMANT WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR PENSION. THIS LETTER BROUGHT SHOCK TO THE PETITIONER. SHE MADE NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIONS SEEKING CLARIFICATION FROM RESPONDENT NO. 2 AS TO WHY THE FAMILY PENSION PAYMENT HAS BEEN STOPPED. SHE DID NOT GET ANY CLARIFICATION OR INFORMATION. SHE ONLY LEARNT THAT AS HER HUSBAND WAS UNDER LAY-OFF WHEN HE DIED, THE SECOND RESPONDENT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT HE HAD NOT COMPLETED RECKONABLE SERVICE AS PER PARA 2(F) OF THE SCHEME. HENCE, SHE HAS FILED THIS WRIT PETITION WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER DATED 27-6-1991 (ANNEXURE-E) AS NULL AND VOID AND FOR A DECLARATION THAT HER HUSBAND LATE K. ESHWARAPPA HAD PUT IN RCCKONABLE SERVICE AS PER PARA 2(F) OF THE SCHEME FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING FAMILY PENSION BENEFITS.

(3.) THE RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT FILED THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS.