Bombay High Court
Smt.Khatoonbee Wd/O Mohd.Abdul ... vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 7 July, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 Judg. wp 2359.08.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.2359 of 2008
Smt. Khatoonbee wd/o Mohd. Abdul Rasheed,
Occ.- Housewife, R/o.-Tukobagram Chowk,
Sanjan Nagar, Sakkardara, Bidipeth, Nagpur. .... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1] The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
132-A, Ridge Road, Tukdoji Maharaj Chowk,
Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur- 440 009.
2] The Manager, Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd.,
Seminary Hills, Nagpur. .... Respondents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Tajwar Khan, Counsel for petitioner.
Ms U.R. Tanna, Counsel for respondent no.1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram : R. K. Deshpande &
Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.
Dated : 07 July, 2017
th
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R. K. Deshpande, J.)
The husband of the petitioner was appointed as 'Driver' in the
services of the respondent no.2-Mineral Exploration Corporation
Limited on 02-05-1977. He took voluntary retirement from service
with effect from 31-05-1994 and he expired on 05-10-2001. The
husband of the petitioner received the benefits under the Employees
2 Judg. wp 2359.08.odt
Provident Fund Scheme, 1971.
2] The Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 was introduced with
effect from 16-11-1995 under which the persons who ceased to be the
members of the 1971 Scheme between 01-04-1993 to 15-04-1995,
were entitled to exercise option under paragraph 17 of 1995 Scheme.
Under paragraph 17 of the 1995 Scheme, if such members decide to
opt for the 1995 Scheme, they are required to refund the benefits
received earlier under the 1971 Scheme along with interest at the rate
of 8.5 % per annum from the date of withdrawal of benefit.
3] In the decision of this Court in the case of Viju w/o Manohar
Sawle vs Secretary, Government of India and others, reported at
2005(3) Mh.L.J. 51, it is held in paragraph 13, that it is a primary
responsibility of the employer to seek particulars from the person
who is entitled to become a member of 1995 Scheme and to furnish
such particulars to Commissioner. There was no cut off date
prescribed for joining 1995 Scheme and it was held in the said
decision, if the husband of the petitioner would have been alive, he
would have been still in a position to opt for the 1995 Scheme.
4] It is not in dispute that the controversy involved in the present
case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of this Court. The
3 Judg. wp 2359.08.odt
husband of the petitioner has received the benefits under the 1971
Scheme and if the petitioner wanted to avail benefit of 1995 Scheme,
she will have to refund the monetary benefits received under the
earlier scheme along with interest at the rate of 8.5 % per annum
from 16-11-1995 till the deposit of the amount received under the
earlier Scheme. The petitioner is prepared to deposit such amount
and comply with the formalities required for that purpose. Upon
deposit of this amount, the petitioner would be entitled to benefit
under 1995 Scheme.
5] In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated
22-10-2002 and 21-02-2007 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is
permitted to deposit the monetary benefits received under the 1971
Scheme along with interest at the rate of 8.5 % per annum from
16-11-1995 till the date of deposit of the amount. The petitioner to
appear before the respondent no.1 on 07-08-2017. Within a period
of 15 days from the date of appearance, the respondent no.1 shall
calculate the amount to be deposited by the petitioner along with
interest. Upon furnishing such details the petitioner shall deposit the
said amount within a period of one month thereafter. Upon such
compliance 1995 Scheme shall be made available to the petitioner
within a period of two months thereafter.
4 Judg. wp 2359.08.odt
6] The Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Deshmukh
