Central Board Of Trustees vs R.S. Sharma
2022 Latest Caselaw 3560 Chatt

                                                1


                                                                                   NAFR

                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                    REVP No. 62 of 2022
         Central Board Of Trustees Employees Provident Fund Organization,
          Through - The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Rpfc), Block - D,
          Scheme No. 32, Indira Gandhi Vyavsayik Parisar, Pandri, Raipur, District -
          Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 492004.
                                                                         ---- Petitioner
                                           Versus
        1. R.S. Sharma S/o Late Gaya Prasad Sharma, Aged About 66 Years R/o C-
           41, Vijaypuram Colony, Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
        2. Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Dairy Federation, Through Its Managing
           Director, Urla, Post Bmy Charouda, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                      ---- Respondent

     For Petitioner                         :       Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate
     For Respondent                         :       Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate


                            Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                                     Order on Board
12/05/2022

1. The present review petition has been filed seeking review of the order

passed in WPS No. 1849/2022 decided on 21.03.2022.

2. The short facts which led to the disposal of the said writ petition was that

the review petitioner establishment herein had reviewed the revised

pension, which was paid to the respondent No.1-the original petitioner of

the writ petition vide order dated 25.02.2022 revising the pension and

ordering for the entitlement of the petitioner pension at the pre-revised

rate that he was getting. This Court had allowed the said writ petition on

the ground that the action on the part of the review petitioner in reducing

the pension was an action which had an adverse civil consequence and

admittedly the reduction of pension was made without compliance of the

basic principles of natural justice. In as much as the respondent No.1-the

original petitioner was not even issued with a show cause notice as to

why the pension should not be reduced or brought to the pre-revised rate.

3. The view of this Court should fortified from a decision of the Madhya

Pradesh High Court in the case of "Hemant Dhere v. Employee Provident

Fund Organization and others" Writ Petition No. 3841/2021, which stood

decided on 08.06.2021. The view of the Court also was on the ground

that the decision of the P.F. organization in reducing the pension was on

the ground that a similar issue is pending consideration before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in a review petition, where the review petition has

been allowed and the original matter is pending consideration before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court. This Court had taken a view that though the

review petition was allowed, but the original order has not been stayed or

recalled till date and as long as the same is not recalled or stayed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, the said judgment holds good.

4. Keeping all these facts, this Court had allowed the writ petition, however

while allowing the writ petition the right of the P.F. organization was

reserved to take appropriate steps if he so wants after granting a fair and

reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondent No.1. This in other

word means that the interest of the P.F. Department was also born in mind

by the Court and the interference to the action of reduction in pension

was only on the ground of non-compliance of the principles of natural

justice.

5. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case only because the

other petition which were entertained by the Madhya Pradesh High Court

where the writ petitions were only admitted for hearing calling upon the

reply of the respondents cannot be a ground for this Court to review the

order dated 21.03.2022. The other ground raised by the petitioner as

regards the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed a review

petition in the case of SLPC No. 8658-8659 of 2019 and have referred the

matter to a Larger Bench again cannot be a ground for reviewing of the

order passed by this Court which has just primarily being interfered by this

Court on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Moreover,

though the review petition has been allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court and the SLP has been ordered to be heard on merit again and the

matter stands placed before a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, the effect and operation of the original order passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court does not seem to have been stayed or nor is there any

interim protection as such from its operation given by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court.

6. Under the said circumstances also it would not be proper for this Court to

entertain a review petition. The apprehension of the review petitioner that

in the event if the Hon'ble Supreme Court decides the matter in favour of

the E.P.F. organization, they would not be in a position to carry out any

recovery from the beneficiaries also cannot be a ground for review for the

reason as narrated in the preceding paragraphs. The interference by this

Court was primarily on the ground of the action being in violation of the

principles of natural justice and the right of the organization stood

reserved and protected to take appropriate action after complying the

principles of natural justice.

7. For all the aforesaid reasons, the review petition stands rejected.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved