CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES Vs. ERAVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mahatma Gandhi the Father of Nation has said:-

(2.) Mr.Amarchand Repur while working in the Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Bharritola, Tahsil Maanpur, District Rajnandgaon died in harness leading to filing of application for grant of succession certificate No.02/2015 before the Succession Court by his first wife Kanti Bai (respondent No.4 herein) and her two sons-Mahanand Repur and Muchkundh Repur as well as second wife Erawati and her two daughters for getting retiral dues. The Succession Court by its order dated 21.10.2016 partly granted the application holding that Kanti Bai and two others as well as Erawati Bai and two others each of them are entitled for 1/4th share in the property/amount left by Mr.Amarchand Repur, against which, second wife-Erawati Bai and two others preferred appeal before the appellate Court. During pendency of the appeal, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat and on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, an award was passed by Lok Adalat on 12.8.2017 and accordingly, the succession certificate was issued on 21.9.2017 by the Succession Court in favour of the persons held entitled thereto by Lok Adalat stating that parties are entitled for total amount of Rs. 31,74,939/-, out of which, employees provident fund amount is Rs. 9,32,164/-. Now, the petitioner-Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India stating inter-alia that the award passed is contrary to law and as such, it is violative to para 70 (ii) (a) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter called as "EPF Scheme") as respondents No.5 and 6 are not entitled for any share in the property left by Amarchand Repur.

(3.) Mr.Sunil Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned award passed by the Lok Adalat is contrary to law as by virtue of para 70 (ii) (a) of the EPF Scheme, respondents No.5 and 6 being major sons of deceased are not entitled for amount of EPF accumulations, thus the award not being lawful is liable to be set aside.