Page No.# 1/8 vs The Employees Provident Fund ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 778 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/8 vs The Employees Provident Fund ... on 3 June, 2025

                                                              Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010100242022




                                                        2025:GAU-AS:7194

                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                       Case No. : WP(C)/3536/2022

         RITA CHHETRY
         W/O LATE GOBINDA BAHADUR CHHETRY, R/O PENGREE ROAD
         BAPAPUNG, P.O.-DIGBOI, DIST-TINSUKIA, ASSAM

         VERSUS

         THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION AND 3 ORS.
         REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHNIDHI
         BHAWAN, G.S. ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI-05

         2:THE ASSISTANT
          PF COMMISSIONER
          SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE
         TINSUKIA
          2ND FLOOR
         AMAR COMPLEX
         A.T. ROAD
         TINSUKIA
          P.O.-HIJUGURI
          DIST-TINSUKIA
         ASSAM
          PIN-786125

         3:THE PUBLIC RELATION OFFICER
          SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE
          EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
          SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE
         TINSUKIA 2ND FLOOR
         AMAR COMPLEX
         A.T. ROAD
         TINSUKIA
          P.O.-HIJUGURI
          DIST- TINSUKIA
         ASSAM
                                                                          Page No.# 2/8

             PIN-786125

            4:THE C.M HO AND CO
             REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER
             MAKUM JUNCTION
             P.O.-MAKUM
             DIST- TINSUKIA
            ASSAM
             PIN-78817

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S ISLAM, MR A HAWARI,MR B K MISHRA

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, EPF,

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Date : 03-06-2025

Heard Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3. None appeared for respondent No. 4.

2. The challenge made in this writ petition is to the impugned communication dated 23.08.2021 issued by the Public Relation Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Tinsukia, Assam to the M/s C.M. HO & Co., Makum Junction, Makum, Tinsukia, whereby, the deceased husband of the petitioner is held to be not eligible for Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme Benefits (herein after EDLI Benefits in short) as he had died after resignation and the reason for leaving service is mentioned as "Death away from services".

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that her husband Late Gobinda Bahadur Chhetry, who was an employee of M/s C.M. HO & Co., a private company deals with manufacturing of Tea factory machines, had died on Page No.# 3/8

10.12.2019 while in service. At the time of his death the husband of the petitioner was discharging his duty as Factory Manager. The deceased husband of the petitioner joined his duty on 01.12.1987 and therefore, his due retirement was on 09.01.2022.

4. The petitioner claims that her husband attended his office on 07.12.2019 and 08.12.2019 was the Sunday. On 09.12.2019 and 10.12.2019, the office was closed due to CAA protest and on 10.12.2019, the husband of the petitioner has suddenly expired. It is contended that the petitioner's husband never resigned from his service during his lifetime, therefore, the petitioner and other legal heirs of her husband are entitled to all the service benefits including the EDLI benefits from Employees Provident Fund Organization.

5. The petitioner after the death of her husband submitted the composite claim form SIF (EDLI) in the office of M/s C.M. HO & Co., and accordingly, the application was forwarded to the office of the Assistant PF Commissioner, Sub- Regional Office, Tinsukia, Assam enclosing all the relevant documents for release of the Insurance benefits claim from the office of the Employee's Provident Fund Organization.

6. It is contended that while forwarding the claim form of the petitioner, the office of M/s C.M. HO & Co. had inadvertently made a mistake that the petitioner's deceased husband left his service on 07.12.2019 and subsequently, the same was clarified vide letter dated 03.07.2020, 26.09.2020 and 26.02.2021 by stating that reflecting the date of leaving of the petitioner's husband from his service on 07.12.2019 was a mistake.

7. It is contended that the respondent authority without considering such fact of an inadvertent mistake committed by the office of M/s C.M. HO & Co. has Page No.# 4/8

issued the impugned letter dated 23.08.2021, whereby, the petitioner husband is held not eligible for EDLI benefits. Therefore, the rejection of the claim of EDLI benefits by the petitioner in respect of her deceased husband is illegal.

8. Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner had died while he was in service on 10.12.2019 and on 08.12.2019 being Sunday and on 09.12.2019 and 10.12.2019 being the Assam Bandh due to CAA protest, the rejection of the claim of EDLI benefits on the ground that the husband of the petitioner had died after resignation and reason for leaving service as "Death away from Services" is illegal.

9. Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel submits that the petitioner being the wife of Late Gobinda Bahadur Chhetry, who was an employee of M/s C.M. HO & Co. at the time of his death on 10.12.2019, is entitled to the EDLI benefits. Therefore, he submits that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to release the EDLI benefits to the petitioner.

10. Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 submits that the date of exit from service of the husband of the petitioner Late Gobinda Bahdur Chhetry, as per record of the employer establishment M/s C.M. HO & Co., was 07.12.2019. The petitioner herself in her application for monthly pension in Form-10-D (E.P.S.), has mentioned the date of leaving service of her deceased husband Late Gobinda Bahadur Chhetry as 07.12.2019. The said claim Form was forwarded to the respondent by the Employer. The family pension is therefore paid to the petitioner and her son and daughter, on the basis of her said application as per the provisions of the EPF Pension Scheme. However, when the respondent found some defects in the particulars mentioned in Form No. 10-D in respect of the deceased employee, the records were inspected and after such inspection a report was submitted along with Page No.# 5/8

relevant documents with a finding that, the date of exit from service of Late Gobinda Bahadur Chhetry was 07.12.2019, while he died on 10.12.2019 and the Provident Fund benefits was extended to the family members as 'death away from service'.

11. He submits that on verification of Attendance Register of the establishment, it was found that the deceased member was present up to 07.12.2019 and salary, ex-gratia and other benefits was paid up to 07.12.2019. Accordingly, the respondent authorities came to the finding that the beneficiaries of the deceased, would not be eligible for EDLI benefits. He submits that the respondent authorities have communicated to the employer of the deceased husband of the petitioner on 15.09.2021 to re-submit the claim after filled up all the column properly and provide correct data.

12. Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned Senior counsel submits that it is apparent that the petitioner, knowing fully well about particulars submitted by her and forwarded by her employer to the respondents has challenged the letter dated 23.08.2021, which was issued prior to the EPFO letter dated 15.09.2021, to secure the EDLI benefits, to which she is not legally entitled. Therefore, since the petitioner's husband left the service on 07.12.2019 and died on 10.12.2019, when he was not in service, no benefit towards EDLI can be released to the nominee/nominees of the deceased husband of the petitioner.

13. Mr. P.K. Roy, learned Senior Counsel submits that this Court on 09.04.2024 has directed the respondents to conduct an enquiry and accordingly, an enquiry was conducted and as per the verification report, it is clearly reflected that on scrutiny of Form No.20 duly signed by beneficiaries and employer/authorized person the date of leaving was written as 07.12.2019. Accordingly, the claim was settled. Therefore, the petitioner and other legal heirs are not entitled to Page No.# 6/8

EDLI benefits and as such, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

14. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

15. The husband of the petitioner Late Gobinda Bahadur Chhetry, was an employee of a private company, namely, M/s C.M. HO & CO. deals with manufacturing of Tea factory machines. The deceased husband of the petitioner had last attended his office on 07.12.2019. The next day i.e. 08.12.2019 being Sunday and 09.12.2019 and 10.12.2019 being the Assam Bandh due to CAA protest, admittedly, the deceased husband of the petitioner did not attend his duty after 07.12.2019 and unfortunately, expired on 10.12.2019.

16. The petitioner has submitted a claim Form before the employer and accordingly, the claim Form was forwarded to the respondents. Form-10-D (E.P.S) clearly reflects the date of leaving service of the petitioner's deceased husband as 07.12.2019. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner, made an attempt to justify that even though petitioner's deceased husband had last attended his duty on 07.12.2019, in view of the 08.12.2019 being Sunday and 09.12.2019 and 10.12.2019 being an Assam Bandh due to CAA protest and therefore, the employer has considered the deceased husband to be in service while he died on 10.12.2019, this court is not persuaded to take a view that the deceased husband of the petitioner was an employee on the date of his death as admittedly, he had last attended his duty on 07.12.2019.

17. On careful consideration of the Form-10-D submitted by the petitioner, it clearly reflects that the date of leaving service of her late husband Late Gobinda Bahadur Chhetry was on 07.12.2019. The record including the applicable provisions does not indicate as to what would happen in the event of such Page No.# 7/8

eventuality like the present case, i.e., when the employee could not attend his duty due to unavoidable situation or contingency and beyond the control of the employee, like bandh call etc. In the absence of such provision, it would be difficult to consider the days of absence in the duty as deemed on duty and treat to be an employee. Thus, I am of the considered view that the deceased husband of the petitioner appears to have last attended his duty on 07.12.2019, although, the absence from duty on 09.10.2012 and 10.12.2019 was beyond his control and who had unfortunately died on 10.12.2019.

18. Regard being had to the phrase/terminology used in the impugned communication dated 23.08.2021 by mentioning that the member died after resignation and reason for leaving service mentioned as "Death away from services", in view of the above conclusion of this Court, the same would be inconsequential.

19. The definition of the "employee" is provided under Section 2(f) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, means any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of an establishment, and who gets his wages directly or indirectly from the employer and includes any person employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with the work of the establishment, engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 or under the standing orders of the establishment.

20. The term "Insurance benefit" given in paragraph 2(b) of EDLI would make it evident that it stipulates for a payment linked to the average balance in the Provident Fund account of an employee payable to a person belonging to his family or otherwise entitled to in the event of death of the employee while being a member of the fund. Thus, it stipulates for two pre-conditions for payment of Page No.# 8/8

the assurance benefit. Firstly, the person should be an employee and secondly, he should be a member of the fund.

21. In the present case, admittedly, the deceased husband of the petitioner was not an employee within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, as he had last attended his duty on 07.12.2019 and had died on 10.12.2019, which cannot be treated as employee and therefore, cannot be held to be entitled for the assurance benefit under the EDLI.

22. Having considered that the deceased husband of the petitioner Late Gobinda Bahadur Chhetry having been found last attended his duty on 07.12.2019, which is clearly mentioned in the claim Form, I am of the considered view that the petitioner and the other nominees or legal heirs of Late Gobinda Bahadur Chhetry would not be entitled to EDLI benefits.

23. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the petitioner and other legal heirs of Late Gobinda Bahadur Chhetry would not be entitled to the Assurance benefit under the EDLI in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus, no relief can be granted.

24. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant