REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. VIJAY MALA BHONSLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal impugnes an order dated 20th Feb. , 2002 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 432/98 whereby while allowing the petition, an order dated 22-2-91 being Annexure P-2 thereto, passed by the appellant was quashed and consequently, benefits of family pension in terms of Paragraph 30 of the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 (in short 'the Scheme, 1971') have been granted.

(2.) IT is said that husband of the respondent No. 1 was employed as a Watchman in M. P. State Road Transport Corporation and on account of unavoidable circumstances, having fallen sick, he is said to have remained on leave without pay from 8-1-1986 to 2-12-1987. It is further said that right from entry into service, the deceased had been regularly contributing to the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and had also opted for the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 but during the period as aforesaid, on account of ailment, a situation beyond his control, the deceased could not continue with contribution to the Scheme, 1971 as he was not being paid any salary. After his death on 3-12-1987, the family applied for family pension in terms of the Scheme which was rejected as per letter dated 22-2-91 (Annexure P- 2 to the writ petition) addressed to the Divisional Manager, M. P. S. R. T. C. , Gwalior, without endorsement of a copy thereof to the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 went from pillar to post praying for the pensionary benefits, but instead thereof, she was returned the accumulated contribution amounts in 1990 said to have been contributed by the deceased to his accounts under the Provident Fund and the Family Pension Scheme, without explaining the legal effect of acceptance thereof, in her case, to the respondent No. 1. Having approached the Department and seeing no other alternative, the respondent No. 1 moved this Court by way of writ petition and during the pendency of the said writ petition, she restored the withdrawn fund by depositing the amount of pension fund along with prescribed interest thereon on 23-5-2000.

(3.) THE appellant has addressed his principal submission to withdrawal of accumulated contribution amounts. It is said that this point has not been dealt with in right perspective by learned Single Judge. However, looking to discussion on this point in the impugned judgment, this submission need not be elaborated any further as the money was returned to the widow without explaining the effect of acceptance on her right to family pension under the Scheme. The appellant has also addressed his submission to entitlement of the respondents to get family pension under the Scheme in the absence of payment of contribution beyond statutorily permissible period of such defaults for one reason or other. On the other hand, learned Sr. Counsel Shri H. N. Upadhyay has reiterated the submissions made on behalf of the respondents in the writ petition and has prayed for dismissal of the appeal being devoid of merits.