REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. MARIAM BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal preferred against the order passed by the CDRF, Kollam in O.P. No. 513/2003 by the appellant (appellant was the 1st opposite party in the lower Forum) the propriety of the order passed by that Forum is under challenge.

(2.) BEFORE considering the propriety of the order passed by the lower Forum directing the appellant to sanction pension "under the EPS 1995 with 9% interest from 1.4.1995 to the complainant after returning the amount of withdrawal benefits, if any, or remitting the EPF contribution from 1.3.1971 with interest" we have to state the undisputed facts for the disposal of the appeal. Undisputed facts are that the complainant was a member of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (for short 1952 scheme) and she became a member of that scheme from 1.4.1963. She withdrew her Provident Fund accumulations on 16.8.1995 and her service was terminated by her erstwhile employer on attaining 58 years with effect from 31.3.1995. The other important fact that is to be borne in mind by us for adjudicating the controversy between the parties is that there is no allegation in the complaint or in the affidavit filed by the complainant that while in service she opted to become a member of Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 (for short 1971 scheme) by exercising option as provided under paragraph 3 or paragraph 4 of that scheme. No material also has been produced to disprove the case of the appellant that she never became a member of 1971 scheme. The other important factor to be taken into consideration for determining the question whether the 1st respondent/complainant is entitled to pensionary benefits or not is when a member of 1952 scheme ceases to be a member of that scheme, when a member of 1971 scheme ceases to be a member of that scheme and also when a member of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 (for short 1995 scheme) ceases to be a member of that scheme. Para 26A of 1952 scheme provides that a member of that scheme ceases to be a member on withdrawing the PF accumulations entitled to him or her. Here in the instant case the PF accumulations were withdrawn by the complainant on 16.8.1995 and thus it is clear from the materials on record that she ceased to be a member of 1952 scheme before 1995 scheme was brought into force with effect from 16.11.1995. Para 6 of 1971 scheme says that a member of that scheme ceases to be a member on attaining the age of 60 years. From the definition of the term member contained in para 2 of 1995 scheme and also from para 6A of that scheme, it is clear that a member of that scheme ceases to be a member on attaining 58 years.

(3.) THEN the cardinal question that is to be considered is as to whether the complainant became a member of 1995 scheme exercising option under Paras 7(3) and 17(3) as provided under Para 6(d) of 1995 scheme.