BATTULA VEERASWAMY Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLYING these principles, to the case on hand, it becomes clear that, the petitioner is treated to have retired from `defense service' w. e. f. , 1. 8. 1976, the date on which he got absorbed in the service of MIDHANI and from that date, his salary and allowances are not liable to be charged to the consolidated fund of India. He earned a right for receiving `retiring pension' and `death cum retirement gratuity' for the services rendered by him up to 1. 8. 1976. The pension became payable to him as, the same is recognised as `deferred payment' for the past services rendered in the youthful years of an individual. It is not liable to be treated as an act of bounty but as a reward for the quality services rendered in the past.

(12.) THEREFORE, the writ petitioner has earned pension for the service rendered by him to Central Government between 6. 11. 1959, the date of his appointment upto 1. 8. 1976, the date of his absorption in MIDHANI. In other words, he is not being granted any pensionary benefits or service gratuity by the Central Government for the period of service beyond 1. 8. 1976. The right earned by him in the form of pension up to 1. 8. 1976 cannot disentitle him to earn pension or gratuity or provident fund for the service to be or rendered by him beyond 1. 8. 1976 to Midhani, which is an establishment covered by the sweep of the Act. Therefore, unless MIDHANI has a scheme under which it agreed to or bound to pay the writ petitioner provident fund and pension for the services rendered by the writ petitioner beyond 1. 8. 1976, the Central Provident Fund commissioner could not have invoked the power available to him under sub-section (1-C) of Section 17. If MIDHANI does not pay any such benefits and in view of the fact that it is an establishment liable to be covered by the sweep of the act, the employee cannot be denuded of his right to the benefits under the Act and any pension scheme evolved thereunder. Further, all other employees of midhani are covered by the sweep of the act. For instance, an employee who joined the service of Midhani on or after 1. 8. 1976, gets covered by the sweep of the Act and becomes entitled for the benefits of EPS 1995. Whereas, the writ petitioner and other Central Government employees who got absorbed in Midhani are denied the said benefits. Hence, they are clearly discriminated, all due to the exemption order passed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner. Therefore, fundamentally the exemption notification dated 30. 9. 1991 granted by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner in the case of the writ petitioner and similarly placed former central government employees absorbed in central public sector undertakings, is clearly unjust and went beyond the power traceable to sub-section (1-C) of Section 17 of the Act.

(13.) THE Central Provident Fund Commissioner has been constituted under Section 5d of the Act and assigned the fundamental duty to secure the implementation of the provisions and schemes envisaged under the Act by every employer. Therefore, he ought to have been satisfied that cases like that of the writ petitioner are exactly covered by one scheme or the other which not only provided for payment of provident fund but also pension by the Public Sector undertakings like MIDHANI. In the absence thereof, he could not have granted the exemption under sub-section (1-C) of Section 17.