OM PRAKASH MISHRA Vs. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, in the instant writ application, has approached this Court praying for writ, order or direction to declare the action of the respondents as null and void, in not releasing the pension of the petitioner and for a further direction for release of his pension with interest @ 18% per annum.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the indispensable essential material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy needs to be first noticed. The petitioner was employed somewhere in the year 1969 with the Martin & Harris Services Private Limited at Kolkata and was later on transferred to New Delhi Branch of the Company (respondent No. 3). It is pleaded case of the petitioner that he was a member of the Provident Fund Scheme and his PF Account Number is DL/20516/15. He retired acquiring the age of superannuation of on 31st January, 2005. He has further pleaded that he also became the member of Pension Scheme, 1971 and 1995, after having completed of all the required formalities. After his retirement, he received a communication dated 5th August, 2005 from the office of Employees Provident Fund Organization, New Delhi (respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 herein), calling upon him and his employer to fulfill certain required conditions as per requirement of law. The communication sought clarification from his employer (respondent No. 3), for not including the petitioner as a member of the Pension Scheme. The petitioner, in response to the communication aforesaid, addressed a letter on 25th August, 2005, expressing his willingness for availing the benefits of Family Pension Scheme, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'FPS, 1971, for short) and Monthly Pension Scheme, 1995. From the materials available on record, it is evident that an amount of Rs. 58,888/ - was also released in favour of the petitioner on account of Provident Fund. The petitioner, after repeated representations, claiming benefits of Pension Scheme, addressed a legal notice through his counsel on 1st November, 2007. The representations as well as the notice have not evoked any response and, therefore, has instituted the writ proceedings in the year 2008.

(3.) I have heard the learned for the parties and perused the materials available on record.