SHADI LAL MALIK Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an employee of the Haryana Dairy Development Corporation that later became a Federation. He was working as Accounts Officer with one of the constituents of the Federation viz., Model Exotic Farm, Bhiwani. This was taken over by the Government and treated as a part of the Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Haryana. The petitioner's grievance is that his entitlement to pension has been denied to him although the Haryana Government service was pensionable, only on account of the fact that on the day when he became a Government servant on 1.4.1994 till the date when he retired on 31.3.1998, he had less than 10 years of service, which was qualifying service for pension. The petitioner's basis for a claim to pension is that he had been a contributory to a Provident Fund Scheme under the Federation ever since his entry into service and at the time when he was absorbed with the State Government department, the contribution 'which he had made to the tune of Rs. 84,153/-, had been transferred to the GPF account by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The Employees' Provident Fund Scheme was introduced in the year 1995 in the Federation but since the petitioner had already come from the Federation and treated as a Government employee, the provision that allowed for persons who were contributories in EPF Scheme to opt for a change for the pension scheme, was not offered to the petitioner. Noticing that there could be hardship to persons like the petitioner, the office of Accountant General had advised the Director, Animal Husbandry that while GPF Rules of the Central Government provided for Rule 35-A to the effect that if a Government servant admitted to the benefit of the Fund was previously subscriber to any Provident Fund of a body corporate, owned or controlled by the Government, or an autonomous organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the amount of his subscriptions and the employer's contribution would be transferred to his credit in the Fund with the consent of the previous employer, there was no corresponding rule in the Haryana GPF Rules that allowed for such transfer and, therefore, the amount of Rs. 84,153/- transferred to the GPF account could not be treated as an authorized subscription under the Haryana GPF Rules. The office of Account General had advised that even interest would not accrue on the credit given to an employee.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner's case presents a poignant situation of an employee being not admitted to the EPF Scheme because it had been introduced subsequent to his leaving the Federation and not being admitted to the pension scheme because he did not have requisite years of service in the Government job from the time of his entry into Government service till he retired.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on instructions of the State as to how a person who was already in the employment of a Government Corporation or Body, who had subsequently joined the Government service with the concurrence of the previous establishment, could count the number of years of service with the previous employer as service spent on Government duty. The counsel pleads that in this case Model Exotic Farm where the petitioner was working has itself been taken over by the Government and therefore, the benefit of the Government instructions would apply in such a situation. The counsel says that the petitioner would be prepared to refund to the Government the EPF amount received by him at the time of his retirement, before staking a claim for pension.