Madras High Court
P.Paramasivam vs The District Manager/Supervisor on 15 November, 2021
W.P(MD)No.11424 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.11.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P(MD)No.11424 of 2014
and
W.M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014
P.Paramasivam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Manager/Supervisor,
TASMAC Limited,
Dindigul.
2.The Authorized Officer,
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation,
1-Lady Doak College Road,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,
Chockikulam,
Madurai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating
to the communication in MD/MDU/114/REJECTION/42998-
A/374/14(6)/2014 dated 31.03.2014 on the file of the second respondent
and quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to
disburse the death benefits and other PF related amounts payable to the
A/c.No.MD/MDU/0042988/00A/0000374 belonged to the petitioner's
son P.Jeyendran.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
W.P(MD)No.11424 of 2014
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Mohan
For Respondents : Mr.H.Arumugam,
for R1.
: Mr.Murali Sankar,
for R2.
ORDER
The petitioner's son P.Jeyendran joined the first respondent
Corporation as salesman vide an appointment order, dated 29.11.2003.
The deceased has executed a Nomination Form, nominating the
petitioner and his wife. The petitioner's deceased son married one
Shakthi Anushiya on 27.03.2005. After the marriage, unfortunately the
petitioner's son died on 28.07.2005. After the petitioner's son death, the
daughter-in-law snapped her relationship through customary method on
17.10.2005. Thereafter, the said Sakthi Anushiya remarried one
R.Arivalagan on 07.09.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Succession
O.P.No.1 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif, Nilakkottai and
obtain the order of Succession Certificate on 23.09.2008. The petitioner
being the father of the deceased Jeyendran, applied for the death benefits
and the Provident Fund benefits before the first and second respondents.
The second respondent rejected the claim stating that the daughter-in-law
alive and directed the petitioner to produce the Form 20 and Form-10 D
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.11424 of 2014
once again in respect of the daughter-in-law namely, Sakthi Anushiya.
Aggrieved over the order passed by the second respondent, the present
Writ Petition is filed to quash the order and to direct the second
respondent to disburse the death benefits and other benefits.
2.The first respondent has filed a counter stating that all the papers
have been forwarded to the second respondent. The second respondent
has filed a detailed counter stating that the Succession O.P has been filed
only to claim the deposit amount of Rs.15,000/-(RUPEES FIFTEEN
THOUSAND only) from the first respondent and it is not filed to
claiming any pensionary benefits or the Provident Fund benefits and
therefore the same is rejected. The second respondent has also stated that
the petitioner and his wife has submitted Form 20(Employee's Provident
Funds) and Form10D(Pension) and the same was returned stating that
the application ought to be signed by the daughter-in-law also. The
second respondent has also stated that the parents of the deceased
member may be eligible for Provident Fund benefits if they are certified
by the employer as dependent at the time of death and quantum of
Provident Fund benefits will be decided only after deciding the number
of members in the family according to the Employee's Provident Funds
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.11424 of 2014
Scheme Provisions under Para 70(ii). The petitioner is not eligible for
any pensionary benefits under the Employee's Pension Scheme, 1995 as
the parents do not form part of 'family' under Para 2(vii) of the
Employee's Pension Scheme, 1995 and submitted the rejection letter
dated 31.03.2014 is in accordance with law.
3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for
the first respondent and learned counsel for the second respondent.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner is right in claiming Provident Fund, since, the deceased son
has executed the Nomination Form and has mentioned his parents name
only and the deceased has not included his wife as one of the nominees
prior to his death.
5.However, the learned counsel for the second respondent
vehemently stated that the wife of the deceased also is entitled to the
Provident Fund, according to the Employee's Provident Funds Scheme
Provisions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.11424 of 2014
6.On considering the rival arguments, this Court is of the view that
the petitioner's son died in the year 2005 and his wife has remarried in
the year 2007 and the Succession O.P was filed in the year 2008. After
the lapse of 15 years, the wife may not claim the amount since, she is
remarried and not in contact with the petitioner's family. Moreover, the
nomination states that only the petitioner and his wife are entitled to.
Therefore, this Court directs the second respondent to pay the Provident
Fund amount in entirety to the petitioner and his wife.
7.So far as the pension is concerned, the respondent counsel
vehemently stated that the pension cannot be disbursed to the parents of
the deceased, since, as per the definition of the family, the parents are
not included at all and there are humpty number of judgments stating that
the parents are not entitled to.
8.The petitioner counsel equally submitted that the wife has
snapped the relationship with the petitioner's family on 17.10.2005 by the
customary Panchayat before the elders of that village and from that date
onwards the said Sakthi Anushiya is not in contact with the family of the
deceased at all. Moreover, the Nomination Form states only the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.11424 of 2014
and his wife as a nominee. Even in the Sucession Certificate, it is held
that the petitioner and his wife are entitled to. After the lapse of 15 long
years, the petitioner may not make any claim and it will be unnecessarily
lying before the second respondent. He would further submitted that the
Court below has rightly directed to pay the parents only.
9.On considering the rival submissions, this Court understands the
apprehension of the second respondent that if the wife claims in future
before the second respondent, the second respondent will be made liable
to pay the amount. The second respondent is only a Trust and cannot be
made liable for such claims, if paid. For such payment, if the authorities
are made responsible their service would be affected.
10.The issue of including parents in the definition of 'family' was
considered by this Court in W.A(MD)No.3409 of 2002 dated 05.01.2002
in The Regional Commissioner Vs. Mrs.Chellam @ Chellammal. It has
been held as under:
“10.It is not in dispute that the deceased is a
member of the scheme and eligible for sanction of
family pension. Even though parents are not
included in the definition 'family' of the scheme
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.11424 of 2014
1971, as the appellant accepted nomination of the
mother of the deceased to receive the fiscal
assistance after his death, she is entitled to receive
the family pension as the nominee. After realising
the mistake for non inclusion of the parents in the
definition of 'family' in 1971 scheme, they have
included the parents in the definition of 'family' in
1995 scheme. As held by the learned single Judge of
Gauhati High Court, this is a piece of welfare
legislation and aims to achieve the object of giving
the financial protection to the helpless parents of
the deceased employee.
11.Therefore, we are of the considered view
that the learned single Judge has rightly allowed
the writ petition directing the appellant to pay the
family pension to the first respondent and her
husband as per the existing pension scheme with
arrears from 29.07.1987 with interest at the rate of
6% per annum. We see no reasons to interfere with
the said order. The order of the learned single Judge
is confirmed.”
As rightly held by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court EPF
and PF is a beneficial legislation.
11.Therefore this Court directs the second respondent to pay the
EPF and the pension along with arrears to the petitioner and his wife,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.11424 of 2014
being the parents of the deceased Jeyendran.
12.At this juncture the petitioner accepted if the wife makes any
claim, the petitioner would pay the 1/3rd of the pension amount.
Therefore this Court is directing the petitioner to pay the 1/3 rd amount, if
the ex-wife of the deceased makes any claim.
13.With these above directions, this Writ Petition is allowed. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
15.11.2021
gbg/btr
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Note :In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy,
shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.11424 of 2014
To
1.The District Manager/Supervisor,
TASMAC Limited,
Dindigul.
2.The Authorized Officer,
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation,
1-Lady Doak College Road,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,
Chockikulam,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.11424 of 2014
S.SRIMATHY, J.
gbg/btr
ORDER MADE IN:
W.P(MD)No.11424 of 2014
and
W.M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014
Dated:
15.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
