REGIONAL PRIVIDENT FUND Vs. SHUSHILA DEVI KASHYAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner before this court a widow was claiming pension as her son Rohit was a member of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. The employee in question Rohit Kashyap has nominated his father as well as mother to receive pension. Unfortunately, Rohit Kashyap expired on 28-05-2003 and the father of Rohit Kashyap expired on 13-02-2004. A P.P.O. was issued in favour of the father, who was no more and widow was fighting with the Department claiming pension and the Department came up with the case that widow is not entitled for pension. Meaning thereby, the Department resisted the claim inspite of the fact that widow was entitled for pension. The department resisted the case on merits. It was only after an order was passed by this court on 26-09-2018, a P.P.O has been issued in favour of the widow. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this court has directed payment of interest also @ 12.5% per annum and the amount was detained by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The order was passed on merits, after hearing both the parties. There is no error apparent on the face of the record.

(2.) The Apex Court in the case of Haridas Das Vs. Usha Rani Bank (Smt) and Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 78 in paragraph 13 and 20 has held as under :-

(3.) In the aforesaid case the Apex Court has held that a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record means a mistake or an error which is prima-facie visible and does not require any detail examination. In the present case the petitioner has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record, on the contrary this Court has decided the case on merits.