RAM KRIT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these writ petitions have been heard at the admission stage itself analogously as the points involved is the same and similar and the respondents are also same and the grievances of the petitioners are of the similar nature.

(2.) THE petitioners were the employees of Saran Zila Khadi Gramodyog Sangh, Saran, Chapra. Originally they were the employees of Bihar Khadi Gramodyog Sangh which was working at the State level. Later on in the year 1993, for better functioning of Khadi Gramodyog Sangh a decision was taken to divide the said Khadi Gramodyog Sangh at the district level and accordingly separate units of Khadi Gramodyog Sangh at district level were started and allotted registration number districtwise and it was also decided that those who are allotted to be working in the district level should be member of the Khadi Gramodyog Sangh. In that way, the petitioners were the employee of Saran district Khadi Gramodyog Sangh, Chapra.

(3.) IN the counter -affidavit filed by the Khadi Gramodyog Sangh and its unit at Chapra has taken the plea that the petitioners ' claim cannot be entertained on the ground that after their retirement they have already been paid of their Provident Fund amounts with the contribution of the employers and their case has become final and, as such, no scope remains of their entering into the family pension scheme either of 1971 or of 1995. 1971 scheme has been repealed by 1995 and before 1995 scheme has come into force, the petitioners had already retired and as per the scheme of 1995, those who were the members of the provident fund during the scheme of 1971 and remained in service, they become automatically members of the 1995 Family Pension Scheme and in that way, those who are in service had also been listed and being sent to the Provident Fund Commissioner, the list of which has been annexed as Annexure -A to the counter - affidavit of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. It has also been stated by the ex -employer of the petitioner that the claim of the petitioners are hopelessly barred as they have acquiesced their right in not coming within the purview of the scheme of 1995 as they are coming to this Court only in the year 2002 that too without complying the mandatory provisions as contemplated in Para 17 of the scheme of 1995.