G KUPPUSWAMI Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, CHENNAI AND NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE/PANDA DEPT, NEYVELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent herein to treat the petitioner as a deemed member of Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and permit him to exercise his option to become a member of Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that he was employed in the second respondent Corporation as a Lower Division Clerk in the year 1957 and retired from the service on 30.4.1994; that at the time of retirement, he was holding the post of Personnel Manager in P & A Department; that on the date of retirement, he received all his P.F. benefits under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme; that there is no provision for payment of Pension under this scheme and only a lumpsum consisting of the contributions by the employees and the employer plus interest would be paid to the employees on the date of retirement; that the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971 came into force with effects from 01.03.1971; that the Scheme was made applicable to the employees of all factories and establishments to which the EPF & MP Act is applicable; that the employees, to whom the Act applies, have been given option to join the Scheme and that it is the duty of the employer to get the option referred to above exercised by every member to whom the option is given within the specified time.

(3.) The petitioner would further submit that as per para. 4 of the Scheme, the employer is enjoined with the duty to get the formalities of option to form the Scheme by the employees completed within six months from 1.3.1971; that the petitioner being the member of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, was eligible to exercise the option to join the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 as per para. 4 of the Scheme, but the second respondent employer did nothing, though it was its statutory duty; that he was not informed by the Corporation thereby seeking to exercise option to join the Family Pension Scheme, 1971; that the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 was more beneficial to him than the Employees Provident Fund Scheme; that he was not at all aware of the introduction of the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and because of the failure on the part of the employer to comply with the statutory duty under the Family Pension Scheme, 1971, he lost the opportunity of becoming a member of the Family Pension Scheme, 1971.