BHANWAR LAL SUTHAR Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 14/8/2001 (Annex.8), whereby, it was communicated to the Bank by the Assistant Accounts Officer that a new P.P.O. No.1532 has been issued to the petitioner, wherein, the petitioner was entitled to monthly pension of Rs.221/- per month and as he was being paid pension of Rs.267/- p.m., the excess of Rs.2530/- has been paid and, therefore, after adjusting Rs.734/- towards I.R., a sum of Rs.1796/- be deducted and be sent back to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. A further prayer has been made that petitioner is entitled to monthly pension of Rs.763/- p.m. w.e.f. 1/1/1997 or such further increased amount in terms of Accounting Mannual of Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 ('the Scheme, 1995').

(2.) The petitioner was employed as Carpenter by M/s. Metallizing Equipment Company vide appointment letter dated 9/6/1986, he was governed by Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 ('the Act') and the Scheme,1995. The petitioner left the service at the age of 52 years on 31/12/1996 after attaining the age of 52 years on 20/10/1996, whereafter on 28/7/1998, the respondent authorities sent a P.P.O. No.1537 indicating the pension of Rs.267/- per month w.e.f.1/1/1997. The petitioner sought revision of pension in terms of para 12 sub para 4(a) & (b) of the Scheme, 1995. By letter dated 14/1/2001 (Annex.6), the petitioner was informed that his pension has been increased to Rs.325/- p.m. and whereafter the impugned communication (Annex.8) was issued reducing the same to Rs.221/- p.m. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to pension of Rs.763/- p.m. w.e.f. 1/1/1997 in terms of para 12 (4) (a) & (b) of the Scheme, 1995 and as the respondents have passed an order Annex.8 in total contravention of the said provision, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the pension of the petitioner has been calculated in terms of the provisions of the Scheme and same does not call for any interference.