UGRA CHANDRA MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been preferred by a superannuated employee of the Nalanda Khadi Gramodyog Sangh for a declaration and appropriate directions to the respondent authorities that the petitioner is entitled to payment of pension under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as, 1995 Scheme), framed under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) According to the writ petition, the petitioner was born on January 1, 1932, joined the services of respondent No. 3 in 1973, and superannuated w.e.f. February 7, 1997 on reaching the age of superannuation i. e. 65 years of age. It is further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner submitted his application dated January 24, 1999 (Annexure 3) in the prescribed proforma under the 1995 Scheme for release of the benefits thereunder. The petitioner complains before this Court that the same is not being granted to him. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) Before we go into the rival contentions of the parties, it would be useful to give a brief description of the schemes which are relevant for the adjudication of the dispute in the present case. The employees of respondent No. 3 have admittedly been covered by the Act and the petitioner was also a member of the scheme framed thereunder, namely, Employees' Provident Fund Scheme. The Scheme in substance means that the employee makes a contribution every month from his salary and the employer makes a matching contribution. The fund is managed by the Provident Fund Commissioner, and subject to the details of the provisions the same is payable to the employee after his superannuation. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6-A of the Act made a scheme known as Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 1971 Scheme). Subject to detailed consideration of the same, a member of the .Employees' Provident Fund under the Act can be a member of the 1971 Scheme for which he was required to submit his option in Form I within a period of six months of the first day of March 1971 provided the employee was not 59 years of age on the date of his option. The Scheme in substance means that after he opts for the same, the prescribed contribution shall be diverted from his provident fund to his family pension fund under the 1971 Scheme thereafter he or his heirs would be entitled to the benefits envisaged in the 1971 scheme. This Scheme was replaced by the aforesaid 1995 Scheme which was made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6-A of the Act. Subject to a detailed consideration of the same, no employee could become a member of this Scheme after attaining 58 years of age, nor could he be a member of this Scheme unless he was a member of the 1971 Scheme. The question for determination in the present writ petition is whether or not the petitioner exercised his option to be a member of the family pension scheme under the 1971 Scheme, and thereafter did he exercise his option for the Employees Pension Fund under the 1995 Scheme. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that the respondent authorities are under the impression that the petitioner never exercised the option and, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefits of the 1971 Scheme and the 1995 Scheme. Hence the writ petition at the instance of the petitioner.