BAIDULLAH ANSARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is entitled to, it is not disputed, pension under Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. The question is what pension the petitioner is entitled to. There is no dispute that the petitioner worked for more than 24 years as on 16th December, 1995. There is also no dispute that the petitioner was covered under the ceased Family Pension Scheme, 1971. As on 16th December, 1995, the petitioner was in between 48 years and 53 years.

(2.) IN such view of the matter, admittedly, sub -paragraph (4) of paragraph 12 of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 was applicable in so far as the petitioner is concerned. In terms thereof the pension payable to the petitioner is equal to the aggregate of pension as determined under sub -paragraph (2) of paragraph 12 of the said scheme for the period of service rendered from 16th December, 1995 or Rs. 438 per month, whichever is more and the past service benefit as provided in sub -paragraph (3) of the said paragraph subject to a minimum of Rs. 600 per month. There is no dispute as regards determination of pension payable to the petitioner under sub -paragraph (2) of paragraph 12 of the said scheme. The dispute is pertaining to the past service benefit as provided in sub -paragraph (3) of paragraph 12 of the said scheme. The exact words of the scheme to which we are concerned is as follows: "Past service benefit as provided in sub -paragraph (3) subject to a minimum of Rs. 600 per month provided the past service is 24 years." That has got a proviso which deals with past service of less than 24. years with which we are not concerned.

(3.) IN those circumstances, it is declared that on account of past service benefit in terms of clause (b) of subparagraph (4) of paragraph 12. of the said scheme, the petitioner was entitled to Rs. 600 per month and not Rs. 420 as incorrectly determined by the respondent authorities.