K LAXMIBAI Vs. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A poor widow, knocks the door of this Court seeking pension underthe Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 (for brevity 'the Scheme').

(2.) Considering her plight, I enquired from Sri R.N. Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, whether he could impress upon his clients to consider her case sympathetically and provide family pension to the hapless widow, who approached this Court 12 years ago, and who, now, must be around 65 years of age. On instructions from the Respondent authorities, Sri R.N. Reddy informed this Court that, there are several such cases which are pending with the Provident Fund Department, and indulgence shown in one case, contrary to statutory provisions, would result in a large number of similar claims being made. This necessitated the writ petition being heard on merits.

(3.) The facts, relevant for the purpose of this writ petition, are that the petitioner's husband Sri K. Manikyam was an employee of Ajam Zahi Mills, Warangal for over 30 years and was covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act. He fell ill and availed medical facilities, for which he was covered under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act. He suffered employment injury on 14-1-1987, and was on leave from 14-1-1987 to 13-8-1987 and again from 1 -2-1987 to 11-2-1987. This leave was duly sanctioned to him. He resumed duty on 12-2-1987, but unfortunately collapsed at the work place at 9.30 a.m., on the same day and on being rushed to the hospital, was pronounced dead. The petitioner made an application to the second respondent, for grant of family pension in view of the long standing service put in by her late husband, which was rejected on the ground that there was an earlier break of more than one year in the reckonable service of the petitioner's late husband from 8-11-1985 to 30-12-1986. The petitioner's representation to the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi, was referred to the second respondent, and ultimately, the second respondent vide letter dated 23-5-1990, informed the head office as well as the petitioner that in view of the break in reckonable service of the petitioner's husband from November, 1985 to December, 1986, and also during January and February, 1987, the petitioner's request for payment of family pension could not be acceded to.