Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/15 vs Karuna Rani Roy And 9 Ors.W/O. Lt. ... on 1 April, 2025
Page No.# 1/15
GAHC010295382023
2025:GAU-AS:3961-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/110/2025
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
(REPRESENTED BY ITYS REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER)
REGIONAL OFFICE DELHI (CENTRAL) BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN
28- COMMUNITY CENTRE WAZIRPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA DELHI- 110052.
VERSUS
KARUNA RANI ROY AND 9 ORS.W/O. LT. MANORANJAN ROY
VILL. JOGIPARA VIP P.O. AND P.S. BORJHAR
PIN-781015 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM
2:THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REP. BY REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
REGIONAL HEADQUARTER NORTH EASTERN REGION
P.O. GUWAHATI-781085 AUTHORITY OF INDIA.
3:THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ER) AAI
NSCBI AIRPORT KOLKATA-700052 (FOR INFORMATION AND ACTION IN
TIME)
4:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (HR) AAI R.G. BHAWAN SAFDARJUNG
AIRPORT NEW DELHI-110003.
5:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (F AND A) AAI R.G. BHAWAN
SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT NEW DELHI-110003.
6:THE SENIOR MANAGER (HR) FOR GENERAL MANAGER (HR) NER
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA BORJHAR GUWAHATI.
7:THE UNION OF INDIAREPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION B- BLOCK
RAJIV GANDHI BHAWAN SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT NEW DELHI.
Page No.# 2/15
8:THE SECRETARY (PENSION)
DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PENSIONERS WELFARE
LOK NAYAK BHAWAN KHAN MARKET NEW DELHI- 110003.
9:THE SECRETARY (L AND E) MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN RAFI MARG NEW DELHI- 110001.
10:REGIONAL PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
CIVIL AVIATION DEPARTMENT
CANTEEN BUILDING OF AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
NON METRO DIVISION BESIDE NTB PHASE II / ATC BUILDING
N.S.C.B.I. AIRPORT KOLKATA- 700052.
------------
Advocate for : MR. P K ROY
Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for KARUNA RANI ROY AND 9 ORS.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Date of hearing : 01.04.2025
Date of Judgment & Order : 01.04.2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.)
Heard Mr. Siddharth, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the
appellants. Also heard Mr. P. C. Medhi, learned counsel, appearing on behalf
of respondent No. 1; Mr. R. Dubey, learned standing counsel, Airport
Authority of India (AAI), appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2, 3, 4, 5,
& 6; and Mr. K. Gogoi, learned CGC, appearing on behalf of respondents
No. 7, 8, 9 & 10.
2. In view of the order passed by the Court today in the related
interlocutory application being IA(c)1427/2024[in Writ Appeal No.
16001/2023(Filing No.)], the Registry has registered the instant writ appeal
today itself.
Page No.# 3/15
3. With the consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties, the
matter is heard finally.
4. The present intra-Court appeal is instituted assailing the impugned
judgment & order, dated 25.04.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in
WP(c)675/2021, by which the claim made by the respondent, herein, in the
writ petition, was allowed and directions issued to the concerned
respondents to process and authorize to the respondent No. 1, herein, the
pension and pensionary benefits under the provisions of the Central Civil
Service(Pension) Rules, 1972.
5. The respondent No. 1, herein, had approached the writ Court by way
of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)675/2021, praying for authorizing
to her, pension and other pensionary benefits on account of the service
rendered by her deceased husband with the Airport Authority of India
(AAI). The husband of the respondent No. 1, after having served under the
Airport Authority of India(AAI), for a period of 33 years, 9 months and 25
days, while serving as Senior Superintendent(E&M), SG, Borjhar Airport,
superannuated from his service w.e.f. 28.02.2017. Prior to superannuation
of the husband of the respondent No. 1 from his service, he had submitted
the required documents for processing of his retirement benefits.
6. The Office of the Regional Executive Director(NER), Airport Authority
of India(AAI), vide communication, dated 26/27.02.2020, informed the
husband of the respondent No. 1 that on account of the wrong fixation of
his pay, an amount of Rs. 1,25,985/- was overdrawn by him till the date of
his superannuation. Accordingly, the husband of the respondent No. 1 was
Page No.# 4/15
advised to refund the overdrawn amount immediately so as to further
process his case for release of Government pension. The husband of the
respondent No. 1, thereafter, had, vide communication, dated 05.03.2020,
refunded the overdrawn amount of Rs. 1,25,985/- by way of issuance of a
Cheque for the said amount. As the matter was being processed, the
husband of the respondent No. 1, herein, passed away on 21.04.2020.
7. The matter was, thereafter, pursued by the respondent No. 1, herein,
and her family members and on such persuasion being made with the
authorities of the Airport Authority of India(AAI); a communication, dated
10.08.2020, was issued to the respondent No. 1, herein, requiring her to
refund a further amount of Rs. 1,31,385/- being the amount so computed
towards excess drawal of salaries by the husband of the respondent No. 1.
8. At this stage, it is to be noted that the husband of the respondent No.
1, herein, who was subscribing to the Employees Provident Fund scheme,
on his superannuation, was released an amount of Rs. 13,88,101/- towards
Contributory Provident Fund and he was also authorized a pension of Rs.
11,048/- p.m. w.e.f. 25.02.2015, along with other retirement benefits.
9. On the passing away of the husband of the respondent No. 1, herein,
she was authorized a family pension of Rs. 5,524/- per month. The
Government pension due to the husband of the respondent No. 1 and
consequently, the family pension becoming due to her, not being authorized
by the authorities of the Airport Authority of India(AAI); the respondent No.
1, herein, approached the writ Court by way of instituting a writ petition
being WP(c)675/2021, praying for a direction upon the respondent
Page No.# 5/15
authorities to authorize to her husband his due Government pension and
also the family pension as due to the respondent No. 1, herein, on the
passing away of her husband.
10. The learned Single Judge after considering the issues arising in the
matter and also upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties to the
proceeding, was pleased vide judgment & order, dated 25.04.2023, to allow
the writ petition being WP(c)675/2021, by holding that the respondent No.
1, herein, was entitled to the family pension as claimed by her in the said
writ petition and directions came to be issued to the appellants, herein, to
process and authorize to her, pension under the provisions of the Central
Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972.
11. Assailing the judgment & order, dated 25.04.2023, passed by the
learned Single Judge in WP(c)675/2021, Mr. Siddharth, learned counsel for
the appellants, at the outset, has submitted that the pension as authorized
to the husband of the respondent No. 1 by the Employees Provident Fund
Organization being a pension so authorized under the provisions of the
Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952; the same
would not be mandated to be discontinued for the purpose of authorizing to
the husband of the respondent No. 1, and subsequently, to the respondent
No. 1, herein, their respective pension/family pension under the relevant
provisions of the Central Civil Service(Pension) Rules, 1972.
12. Mr. Siddharth, learned counsel, has further submitted that the
pension as authorized to the husband of the respondent No. 1, was so
authorized from the amount so credited in his Employees Provident Fund
Page No.# 6/15
account and as per the provisions of the said Act of 1952, which, he has
contended to be distinct and separate from the pension that is now
required to be authorized to the deceased husband of the respondent No. 1
during his lifetime and thereafter, in the form of family pension to the
respondent No. 1, herein, under the provisions of the Central Civil
Service(Pension) Rules, 1972. The learned counsel has, accordingly,
submitted that the pension being paid to the respondent No. 1, herein, by
the Employees Provident Fund Organization, would be mandated to be
continued.
13. Mr. Siddharth, learned counsel, has submitted that the learned Single
Judge while passing the impugned judgment & order, dated 25.04.2023, in
WP(c)675/2021, ignored the provisions of the Act of 1952 and arrived at an
erroneous conclusion that the husband of the respondent No. 1, herein,
would be entitled to authorized pension under the provisions of the Central
Civil Service(Pension) Rules, 1972, and for the said purpose; the benefits
so drawn by the husband of the respondent No. 1, and subsequently, by
the respondent No. 1, herein, under the provisions of the Employees
Provident Fund Scheme, would be required to be discontinued and
refunded.
14. Mr. Siddharth, learned counsel, has submitted that the reliance placed
by the learned Single Judge on an order, dated 05.12.2019, passed by the
High Court of Madras in WP No. 12228/2018; for the purpose of authorizing
to the respondent No. 1, herein, the family pension under the Central Civil
Service(Pension) Rules, 1972, was clearly erroneous, in-as-much as, the
law laid down in the said decision of the High Court of Madras, cannot be
Page No.# 7/15
said to have reflected the correct position of law.
15. Mr. Siddharth, learned counsel, has submitted that the Airport
Authority of India(AAI) would be at liberty to authorize to the respondent
No. 1, herein; the due pension under the Central Civil Service(Pension)
Rules, 1972, even for the period covering the lifetime of her husband under
the provisions of the Central Civil Service(Pension) Rules, 1972, and there
would arise no occasion for discontinuing the pension received by the
husband of the respondent No. 1, and subsequently, by the respondent No.
1, herein, under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund 1995
Scheme.
16. Per contra, Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, herein,
has submitted that the respondent No. 1 had opted for drawal of the
pension and pensionary benefits due to her deceased husband under the
provisions of the Central Civil Service(Pension) Rules, 1972, and for the
purpose, had also filed an affidavit before the learned Single Judge,
wherein, it was undertaken that she would forego the family pension as
paid to her under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund 1995
Scheme including the amount so received under the said Scheme by her
husband. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the amount
so received under the Employees Provident Fund 1995 Scheme by the
husband of the respondent No. 1 and herself, would be now mandated to
be recovered from the arrears of the pension that would be authorized to
her husband and subsequently, as family pension to her under the
provisions of the Central Civil Service(Pension) Rules, 1972.
Page No.# 8/15
17. Mr. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents Airport
Authority of India(AAI), by referring to the Office Memorandum, dated
11.01.2022, issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India,
has submitted that the Government had decided that those employees who
opt for Government pension based on the combined service of DGCA and
NAA/Airport Authority of India, will not be eligible for any other
superannuation benefit schemes of the Airport Authority of India(AAI)
including Employees Provident Fund pension. Accordingly, the learned
counsel has submitted that upon issuance of the Pension Payment
Order(PPO) for Government pension, the authorities of the Airport
Authority of India(AAI) was now required to take up the matter with the
Employees Provident Fund Organization to ensure stoppage of the
Employees Provident Fund pension forthwith. The learned counsel has
submitted that although the Employees Provident Fund authorities had
stopped the pension in respect of certain employees, but, the same was
subsequently again re-authorized to the employees concerned. The learned
counsel has submitted that the decision of the High Court of Madras in WP
No. 12228/2018, covers the cases of the respondent No. 1, herein, and
accordingly, she also having undertaken to forego the benefits drawn by
her deceased husband and by herself under the provisions of the
Employees Provident Fund 1995 Scheme; the authorities of the Employees
Provident Fund Organization are required to discontinue the payment of
pension to the respondent No. 1, herein, thereby, facilitating her to draw
pension in respect of her husband and subsequently, in the form of family
pension by herself at higher rate as provided under the provisions of the
Central Civil Service(Pension) Rules, 1972.
18. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and
Page No.# 9/15
also perused the materials available on record.
19. We had raised a query with the learned counsel for the appellants,
herein, as to, amongst the 2(two) pension schemes available i.e. the
pension available under the Employees Provident Fund 1995 Scheme of the
Employees Provident Fund Organization and the pension that would be
authorized to the husband of the respondent No. 1, herein, under the
provisions of the Central Civil Service(Pension) Rules, 1972, which would be
more beneficial; Mr. Siddharth, learned counsel for the appellants, has
fairly submitted that the pension benefits under the provisions of the
Central Civil Service(Pension) Rules, 1972, would be more beneficial.
However, Mr. Siddharth, learned counsel, has clarified that the pension
authorized by the Employees Provident Fund Organization, cannot be
stopped and would be mandated to be continued to be drawn by the
respondent No. 1, herein.
20. The contentions as raised by the appellants, herein, was duly
considered by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment & order,
dated 25.04.2023, in WP(c)675/2021. The conclusions reached by the
learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment & order, dated
25.04.2023, being relevant to the issue arising in the matter, is extracted
hereinbelow:
"12. While hearing the matter, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Airport
Authority of India drawing the attention to the Office Memorandum dated 11.01.2022
and the reference being made to an order passed by the High Court of Madras has
also placed the order dated 05.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Madras in W.P.
No.12228 of 2019. A perusal of the said order would reveal that the petitioners
therein taking into account that the pension in terms with the Tamil Nadu Pension
Rules was more beneficial opted for pension under the said Rules thereby foregoing
the pension as well as family pension sanctioned by the Employees Provident Fund
Authority. It further reveals from the order dated 05.12.2019 that the learned Single
Judge of the High Court of Madras had taken into consideration an order being
Page No.# 10/15
passed by the learned Division Bench of the Madras High Court in W.A. No.1246/2009
dated 18.08.2010 wherein the learned Division Bench held that the respondents were
not justified in denying the family pension to the appellant therein solely on the
ground that she was receiving pension under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme
and accordingly directed that the appellant therein would be entitled to the family
pension in terms with the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and there shall be a deduction of
the Employees Provident Fund Pension paid to the appellant for the period during
which the appellant as well as her had husband received. It is also mentioned in the
order dated 05.12.2019 that the said order of the learned Division Bench of the
Madras High Court dated 18.08.2010 in W.A. No.1246/2009 was challenged before the
Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.8381/2011 and the Supreme
Court had dismissed the said Special Leave to Appeal vide an order dated 13.05.2011.
Taking into account the same, the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court vide
the order dated 05.12.2019 observed at paragraph No.13 as herein under:-
"13. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh
representation to the 4th respondent clearly spelling out her option to forego
the Employees' Provident Fund Family Pension and to opt for Family Pension
under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. This representation shall be given within
a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Immediately
on receipt of representation made by the petitioner, the 4th respondent shall
collect all the service details of the husband of the petitioner and the other
details regarding the pension received under the Employees- Provident Fund
Family Pension, till date and forward the same to the 6th respondent. On
receipt of the same, the 6th respondent shall stop the payment of the pension
under the Employees' Provident Fund Family Pension and shall forward the
papers to the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent shall thereafter forward the
entire records to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent shall consider the
entitlement of the petitioner for receipt of Family Pension under the Tamil
Nadu Pension Rules and forward the same to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd
respondent shall thereafter issue the Government Order and thereafter the
petitioner can start receiving the Family Pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension
Rules. The whole process shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this order."
13. This Court upon perusal of the order dated 05.12.2019, the facts involved in the
instant case as well as the Office Memorandums dated 11.01.2022 issued by the
Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India is of the opinion that the petitioner
herein would also be entitled to choose between the pension under the CCS Pension
Rules, 1972 as well as the pension under the EPS-95 Scheme subject to the petitioner
foregoing of such benefit which the petitioner or her husband have received under the
EPS-95 Scheme.
14. Accordingly, this Court, therefore, disposes of the instant writ petition by taking
into account the said affidavit so filed by the petitioner on 04.04.2023 and with a
direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondent No.2 who
shall thereupon forward the same to the Competent Authority clearly spelling out her
option to forego the Employees' Provident Fund Family Pension and to opt for the
family pension under the CCS Rules, 1972. The said representation shall be submitted
within a period of 3 (three) weeks along with a certified copy of the instant order. The
respondent No.2, upon receipt of the said representation shall collect all the service
details of the husband of the petitioner and the other details regarding the pension
received under the Employees' Provident Fund Family Pension till such date and
thereupon forward the same to the respondent No.9. On receipt of the same, the
Page No.# 11/15
respondent No.9 shall stop the payment of pension under the Employees' Provident
Fund Family Pension Scheme and thereupon shall forward the papers again back to
the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 thereupon shall forward the entire records
to the respondent No.10. The respondent No.10 shall consider the entitlement of the
petitioner for family pension under the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and shall thereafter
issue the Government order and thereafter the petitioner starts receiving the family
pension under the CCS Pension Rules, 1972. The whole process shall be completed
within a period of 12 (twelve) weeks from the date of receipt of the representation as
directed herein above.
15. It is made clear that the respondent No.2 before forwarding the documents to the
respondent No.9 shall also take into consideration the amount which the petitioner is
entitled in terms with the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 from the date of entitlement of the
husband of the petitioner, i.e. 01.03.2017 and also deduct the amount to which the
petitioner and her husband received under the EPS-95 Scheme.
16. With the above directions and observations, the instant petitioner stands disposed
of."
21. On a perusal of the conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge
vide impugned judgment & order, dated 25.04.2023, in WP(c)675/2021;
we are of the considered view that the conclusions so reached by the
learned Single Judge, are based on the materials available on record and
no perversity exists with regard to the same.
22. At this stage, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants
that the decision of the High Court of Madras, noticed by the learned Single
Judge in the impugned judgment & order, dated 25.04.2023, in
WP(c)675/2021, to have not laid down the correct position of law, is being
examined.
23. As noticed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment &
order, dated 25.04.2023, in WP(c)675/2021; the learned Single Judge of
High Court of Madras in WP No. 12228/2018, for the purpose of reaching
the conclusions so reached by him therein, had referred to a decision of the
Page No.# 12/15
Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Writ Appeal No. 1246/2009,
dated 18.08.2010, wherein, the High Court of Madras had held that the
respondents were not justified in denying the family pension to the
appellant, therein, solely, on the ground that she was receiving pension
under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme and
accordingly, had directed that the appellant, therein, would be entitled to
family pension in terms of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. It was further
directed that there shall be a deduction of the amount paid under the
provisions of the Employees Provident Fund pension scheme to the
appellant, therein, for the period during which the appellant as well as her
deceased husband, had received the same. The decision of the Division
Bench of the High Court of Madras in Writ Appeal No. 1246/2009, was
assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court on considering the issue arising in the matter, was pleased vide order,
dated 13.05.2011, to dismiss the Special Leave Petition(Civil) so filed.
24. In view of the above position, we are of the considered view that the
contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the decision of the
learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in WP No. 12228/2018, do not
reflect the correct position of law; would not mandate an acceptance.
25. We further hold that the benefits as would now be available to the
respondent No. 1, herein, under the provisions of the Central Civil
Service(Pension) Rules, 1972, being more beneficial and a decision having
already been arrived at by the concerned authorities of the Ministry of Civil
Aviation, Government of India, to authorize the pension and pensionary
benefits under the provisions of the Central Civil Service(Pension) Rules,
Page No.# 13/15
1972, to the husband of the respondent No. 1, herein, and other similarly
situated persons; we are of the considered view that the same must be so
released to the respondent No. 1, herein, fortwith.
26. Having noticed the above position and also the fact that the
respondent No. 1, herein, had already filed an affidavit before the learned
Single Judge undertaking therein that she was ready to forego the family
pension under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme if the pension is so
authorized to her under the provisions of the Central Civil Service(Pension)
Rules, 1972, with effect from the date of retirement of her husband and
further, that the amount so drawn by her husband and by herself under the
provisions of the Employees Provident Fund 1995 Scheme, would be liable
to be recovered from the arrears of the amount now becoming due to her
on her husband being authorized his pension and pensionary benefits under
the provisions of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972; we find
that the learned Single Judge had not committed any error in directing the
authorities of the Airport Authority of India(AAI) to process the case of the
respondent No. 1, herein, for authorization to her, of her family pension in
terms of the provisions of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972,
after taking into account the amount that would now be due to the
respondent No. 1 from the date of the entitlement of her husband for
pension and pensionary benefits under the provisions of the Central Civil
Service(Pension) Rules, 1972, i.e. w.e.f. 01.03.2017.
27. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment & order, dated
25.04.2023, in WP(c)675/2021, having also directed that the authorization
of pension and pensionary benefits to the deceased husband of the
Page No.# 14/15
respondent No. 1, and subsequently, the family pension to the respondent
No.1, herein, would be so made after deductions of the amount drawn by
the respondent No. 1 and by her husband, under the Employees Provident
Fund 1995 Scheme; we are of the considered view that the view taken by
the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment & order, dated
25.04.2023, in WP(c)675/2021, being a plausible view; the same would not
mandate an interference at the hands of the appellants, herein, in the
present intra-Court appeal.
28. In this connection, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Airport Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar
Banerjee, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 232, wherein, it has been held
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in an intra-Court appeal, the finding of
fact of the learned Single Judge, unless such finding is concluded by the
appellate Bench to be perverse, would not be called to be disturbed. It has
been further held that merely because another view or a better view is
possible; there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order
passed by the learned Single Judge unless both sides agree for a fairer
approach on relief.
29. Applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to
above, to the facts of the present case, we having not found any perversity
with regard to the conclusions reached by the learned single Judge in the
impugned judgment and the view taken by the learned single Judge being a
plausible view; we are not persuaded by the submissions of the learned
counsel for the appellant, to take a different view in the matter.
Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment &
Page No.# 15/15
order, dated 25.04.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in
WP(c)675/2021, would not warrant any interference.
30. In view of the above discussions; we do not find any merit in this writ
appeal and consequently, the same stands dismissed. However, there shall
be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
