S EDWIN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was a provident fund subscriber and was working in Thiruchendur Co-operative Spinning Mills Limited, Nazareth, has filed the present Writ Petition seeking to challenge the communications sent by the Provident Fund Department, dated 18.03.2008 and 22.04.2008 and after setting aside the same, he seeks for a pensionary benefit which was already paid to him and he is also entitled for provisional pension under the Pension Pay Order No.16583.

(2.) In the first communication dated 18.03.2008, the petitioner was informed that he enrolled himself in the PF Scheme on 01.09.1965 and ceased to be a member on 18.07.1994 by settlement of his account. During the tenure of his membership, at the relevant time, he did not opt to become a member under the Family Pension Scheme of 1971. He exercised his option for joining the Scheme only in March, 1996, after the settlement of his PF account and after cessation of membership of the EPF scheme. Based on the option, the pension was already released to him. But the Government of India refused to ratify such option of members, who did not opt to become members during the relevant time and, therefore, pension payment, which was already made to him erroneously, was stopped from September, 1999. Pension amount, which was already released in his favor, was adjusted against the remittance made by him for membership and he was already informed that if any amount paid in excess, that may be refunded to the department. The petitioner, once again, made a further representation and by a further order dated 22.04.2008, the petitioner was informed that the proposal sent for ratification was rejected by the Government and, therefore, he cannot be paid pension beyond September, 1999 and his request for grant of monthly pension cannot be considered. He was also informed that the balance payment should be refunded to the department. Challenging these two communications, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.

(3.) When the matter came up on 18.07.2008, this Court ordered notice of motion. Pending the notice of motion, no interim order was granted, though the petitioner sought for an interim direction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application for early hearing. However, the matter itself came to be listed for final disposal. Taking notice on behalf of the Provident Fund Department, the learned Standing Counsel obtained written instructions from the respondents. In the written instructions, it was stated that for any person, who was a provident fund subscriber, in order to become a member of the Family Pension Scheme, 1971, an option will have to be exercised within six months. Subsequently, when an extended option was given to the members to continue in the Scheme, as the new Scheme has also come into force in the year 1995 to opt to join the new Scheme, if they are willing to remit the entire PF contribution towards the family pension fund with interest, the petitioner, for reasons best known, did not opt to become a member of the Scheme by returning the amounts already drawn including the interest and the pension contribution. He left the service of his employer on 18.07.1994 and his entire account standing to his credit was settled in the year 1994. Therefore, the petitioner not having opted to join the Scheme, cannot be granted a further continuance under the said Scheme.