LAWS(P&H)-2006-11-207

STATE OF HARYANA Vs. G R RAWAT

Decided On November 01, 2006
STATE OF HARYANA Appellant
V/S
G R RAWAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal has been filed by the defendants aggrieved against the judgment of the lower Appellate Court allowing the suit filed by the plaintiff after reversing the findings recorded by the trial Court whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff had been dismissed.

(2.) The substantial question of law raised by the appellants in this regular second appeal is as to whether the plaintiff can be permitted to shift from the EPF Scheme to the GPF Scheme in view of the fact that he had not applied to shift to the GPF Scheme prior to 7.1.1986? The relevant facts are recapitulated as hereunder:-

(3.) The plaintiff joined the service of the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board in 1956 and on re-organisation was allocated to the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred as, 'the Board'). The suit was filed by the plaintiff on 20.12.1991 while he was still in the service of the Board with a grievance that the defendants were wrongly deducting amounts from the pay of the plaintiff towards Employees Provident Fund (EPF Scheme) and rather the deduction should have been made to the General Provident Fund (GPF Scheme). During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.9.1996. He therefore claimed that whatever amount had been deducted towards EPF Scheme should be transferred and adjusted towards GPF Scheme along with interest and also prayed for consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants not to deduct any amount from the pay of the plaintiff towards EPF Scheme but rather to make deduction towards GPF Scheme. He had claimed in the suit that from 1967 onwards contribution for the GPF had been made compulsory for the employees of the Board and the plaintiff had made several representations to the defendants asking them not to deduct any amount towards EPF Scheme. Since the defendants had not paid any heed to the representations made by the plaintiff and had refused to admit the claim of the plaintiff, he had filed the present suit.