EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. D. JANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the 1st respondent in W.P.(C)No.12718/2012, a Writ Petition filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking to quash the demand made in Ext.P5 for 2,52,361/ -, towards alleged excess payment of family pension, and for a writ of mandamus commanding the appellant to pay her monthly family pension at the rate of 1,986/ - with effect from December, 2011.

(2.) The pleadings and materials on record would show that the writ petitioner, the 1st respondent herein, is the widow of one Sri.G.Sreeramachandran, who took voluntary retirement on 31.8.1995 from the service of the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore (FACT) at Udyogamandal. He died on 26.10.1997. After his death, the writ petitioner made an application dated 6.3.2000 for payment of pension under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. Pursuant to the said application, the appellant vide Ext.P1 communication sanctioned family pension at the rate of 1,750/ - per month to the writ petitioner. Her unmarried daughter was sanctioned with family pension of 448/ - per month, till she attains the age of 25 years. Later, the writ petitioner was issued with Ext.P5 communication, by which she was informed that, an amount of 2,52,361/ - has been paid in excess for the period from 27.10.1997 to 12/11 towards widow pension and as such she has to refund the same with immediate effect. It was aggrieved by the stand taken by the appellant in Ext.P5, the writ petitioner has approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.12718/2012 seeking appropriate reliefs.

(3.) The appellant filed counter affidavit in the Writ Petition, contending that there was an excess payment of widow pension granted to the writ petitioner and as such, by Ext.P5 she was directed to remit excess payment of 2,52,361/ -. In order to justify the said demand the 1st respondent has relied on various provisions under Para.16(1)(b) read with Para.16(2)(a)(ii) and 16 (3)(b) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995.