REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. SAROJ KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS letter patent appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge rendered in CWP(T) No.3853 of 2008, dated 15.11.2010.

(2.) MATERIAL facts necessary for adjudication of this letter patent appeal are that the husband of respondent Saroj Kumari was employed as Mixer Operator in the H.P.S.E.B. in the year 1977. He died on 25.1.1985 after prolonged illness. Respondent Saroj Kumari was denied the family pension. The matter was taken up by the H.P.S.E.B. with the Assistant Commissioner, Provident Fund on 6.6.1987. However, the fact of the matter is that the same was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, Provident Fund on 25.6.1987. Respondent, Saroj Kumari approached the erstwhile learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal for the redressal of her grievance by filing O.A. No.1684 of 1996. On the abolition of the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal, the O.A. came to be transferred to this Court and was assigned CWP(T) No.3853 of 2008. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition on 15.11.2010 and directed the appellants to pay the due and admissible family pension to the widow of Ramesh Chand from the due date, within a period of three months from the date of production of the copy of judgment alongwith interest at the rate of 9%, failing which higher interest at the rate of 12% was payable.

(3.) MS . Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 has argued that the necessary deductions were being made from the salary of the husband of her client and the amount was deposited with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Chandigarh. She also argued that the period of absence of the husband of respondent Saroj Kumari from 10.1.1984 to 24.1.1985 was regularised. 6. Mr. Trilok Jamwal, learned counsel representing respondents No.2 to 4 has argued that the Board has deposited amount with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the stand of the appellants was contrary to record. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings and record carefully. 8. We have directed the Board to file a Supplementary Affidavit on 1.9.2011 furnishing the particulars of the contributions made to the EPF in respect of Shri Ramesh Chand. The Supplementary Affidavit was filed, which is at page No.70 of the paper book. 9. The husband of respondent Saroj Kumari was engaged as Mixer Operator in the respondent-Board in the year 1977. He was absent with effect from 10.1.1984 to 24.1.1985 due to illness. This period was regularised by the respondent-Board. As per letter dated