KUPPUSAMY G Vs. R P F COMMISSIONER TIRUCHIRAPALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An Officer of the second respondent has come forward with the writ petition before this Court after a lapse of 27 years without making any claim with regard to his Family Pension. He challenged the order of rejection passed by the first respondent.

(2.) The facts of the case which are as follows: The petitioner joined in the second respondent Office in the year 1957 and he worked as Personnel Officer at the time of retirement, i.e. on April 30, 1994. On March 1, 1971, the Family Pension Scheme 1971 was introduced under Section 6(A) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, for the purpose of providing family pension and life assurance benefits to the employees/members by the Central Government. The employees were given option to join the said scheme and were given time before April 30, 1972. The petitioner then opted for the said scheme subsequently on March 3, 1989. Another opportunity was given through Memo No. 2216/IR-3/89 issued by the second respondent wherein it is stated as follows:

(3.) Even then the petitioner did not exercise the option. Subsequently, the petitioner retired on April 30, 1994. After the retirement, on March 23, 1998 the petitioner made a claim by writing a letter to the first respondent that he came to know that a new scheme called the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 was floated to the effect that the applications may be sent to the members of Employee's Provident Fund Scheme who left the service between April 1, 1993 and November 15, 1995 in order to avail the benefits under Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1995. The said communication was followed by petitioner's letters dated January 15, 1998 on April 15, 1999. Therefore, by reply dated April 28, 1999, the second respondent informed that the petitioner did not join employment under employee pension scheme. Therefore, by another reply dated May 25, 1999, the second respondent stated that this employee provident scheme would be applicable only for those who are working as regular employees and not for the retired persons like the petitioner.