SUNANDA SHRIKANT DHOTE Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Mohta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sundaram, learned counsel for Respondent no. l.

(2.) Mr. Mohta, learned counsel for petitioner, states that the husband of the petitioner-Shrikant Dhote was in the employment of respondent no. 2 and he was a member of the Provident Fund Scheme of 1952 framed under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It is submitted that Mr. Shrikant Dhote resigned from the post held by him in the employment of respondent no. 2 w. e. f. 31st May, 2000. Mr. Dhote, the husband of petitioner, applied to respondent No. 1 for withdrawal of Provident fund benefits vide his application/ communication, dated 9th August, 2000. It is submitted that when the above referred proposal of the husband of the petitioner was pending before respondent no. 1, the husband of the petitioner-Shrikant Dhote expired on 25th august, 2000. After the death of husband of the petitioner, the petitioner submitted an application, dated 12th December, 2000, through proper channel, to respondent no. 1, for release of provident fund dues as well as family Pension. Mr. Mohta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the claim of the petitioner to get Family Pension is denied on the ground that prior to 25th August 2000, i. e. , the date on which the husband of the petitioner expired, the respondent no. l had sanctioned the provident fund benefits to the husband of the petitioner pursuant to the application, dated 9th August, 2000, submitted by the husband of the petitioner for withdrawal of provident fund benefits on 24th August, 2000 and, therefore, according to respondents,the petitioner is not entitled for family Pension.

(3.) Mr. Mohta, learned counsel, contended that the relevant provisions of the employees Pension Scheme of 1995, which has been formulated under the Employees provident Fund Act, contained in Paragraph 6-A contemplate that a member of the Employees' provident Fund shall continue to be such member till he avails the withdrawal benefit to which he is entitled under Para 14 of the scheme (other Clauses of Para 6 are not relevant for the controversy in issue). It is contended that in the instant case, the husband of the petitioner died before availing the benefits under the Provident Fund Scheme and, therefore, the defence raised by the respondents in this regard is not sustainable in law and the petitioner is entitled for a Family Pension under the Scheme.