SATPAL YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that the pensionary benefits, which he is entitled to under the Employees Provident Fund Organization Employees Pension Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'Employees Pension Scheme'), which came into effect from 01.04.1993 (Annexure R-11), have not been granted to him by taking an objection that he had not completed 10 years of physical service w.e.f. 01.06.2002 vide impugned reply dated 02.06.2010 (Annexure P-5). Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis as a Clerk with the Golden Lion PH and HP Area Canteen, Jhajjar (A private regimental organization) on 16.09.1989. From time to time, his services were extended on contract basis till his services were regularized on 01.06.2001. He was dismissed from service vide order dated 31.03.2004 which he challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh vide O.A. No. 1090/HR/2005 successfully. The said order of dismissal from service was set aside by the Tribunal vide order dated 19.09.2007, according to which, the petitioner was held not entitled to the back wages but his services were directed to be counted for all purposes including seniority and pay fixation etc. During the said period, the petitioner was taken back in service and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2008. The order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 19.09.2007 was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No. 9832 of 2008, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10.02.2010. He contends that in the light of the fact that the petitioner was serving the respondents all through from 16.09.1989 till the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.10.2008, he had completed more than 10 years of service with the respondents. He contends that the stand of the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner that he has not completed 10 years of physical service, cannot sustain. Referring to the Employees Pension Scheme, counsel contends that as per clause 5 and 7 of the said scheme, a member to be entitled for pension has to complete a minimum of 10 years of service on the date of attaining the age of 58 years. Since the petitioner had completed the said period, he was entitled to the claim, as made by him in the present writ petition.

(2.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondents states that the service of the petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 01.06.2001 and the contribution was deducted from the salary of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.06.2002 and from the date of deduction of the amount till the dale of his superannuation, since the petitioner has not completed 10 years of service, he is not entitled to the benefit of the Employees Pension Scheme.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the deductions which the respondents were to make from his salary from the date of inception of the scheme i.e. 01.04.1993 along with the interest as provided under the scheme.