SHIB RAM MAHTO Vs. JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ for quashing the notice -cum -order dated 30.12.2002 whereby the respondents have stopped payment of pension to the petitioner and have directed the petitioner to refund all the amount of pension received by him.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass : The petitioner joined the service of the Bihar State Electricity Board in 1967 and retired on 30.4.1998 as Head Electrician. He submitted all the papers regarding his pension and gratuity and other benefits. The respondents -BSEB, by order dated 24.11.1998 sanctioned Rs. 1313/ - as monthly pension from 1.5.1998. The petitioner was also paid gratuity amounting to Rs. 52080.00 and Rs. 33,418.00 vide office order dated 5.9.1998. The petitioner was also paid GPF amount of Rs. 83,747/ -. However, from January, 2003 the respondents have stopped payment of pension on the ground that the petitioner was paid gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act. Petitioner's case is that since he received less gratuity which he was entitled under the said Act, so he filed a petition before the competent authority. The application was allowed and the authority directed the respondents to pay to the petitioner Rs. 95,217.14 paise as gratuity. A copy of the order passed by the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act in case No. 9/99 has been annexed as annexure 6 to the writ application.

(3.) THE respondents' case in the counter -affidavit is that in 1987 a tripartite settlement was arrived at between the respondent -Board and the recognized union in presence of the Labour Commissioner, Bihar wherein it was agreed to introduce a new GPF -cum -Pension Scheme in place of old CPF Scheme which is already in vogue in the Board. Pursuant to that settlement the Board issued a resolution dated 8.12.1987 whereby Pension -cum -GPF Scheme was extended to all the employees of the Board who were so far born in non -pensionable scheme and were under CPF rules of the Board. As per the scheme the existing employees of the Board were given opportunity to exercise their option to continue in CPF Scheme. It was mentioned that if option is not given within the prescribed time it would be presumed that the employee has opted for Pension -cum -GPF Scheme. The petitioner did not exercise his option to be governed by old CPF Scheme and, as such, in terms of the aforesaid resolution he was governed by Pension -cum -GPF Scheme. Accordingly, after retirement the petitioner submitted his claim for Pension/DCR; gratuity as per the provisions of Bihar Pension Rules and his claim for gratuity and pension was settled under the Pension -cum -GPF Scheme. The amount of gratuity was calculated and he was paid the amount. But after receiving the said amount the petitioner moved the authority under Payment of Gratuity Act and in terms of the final order passed by the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the Board deposited the gratuity amount playable to the petitioner under the Payment of Gratuity Act. In that view of the matter the petitioner would not be entitled to pension under the pension scheme. It is contended that the petitioner had not given his option and had chosen to have the benefits of gratuity under the Gratuity Act and, therefore, he is not entitled to double benefits. The petitioner either may avail GPF Scheme for the benefit of pension or CPF Scheme according to which he was entitled to gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act.