R.R.V.P.N.L. And Anr vs Smt. Phoola Devi And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 16795 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 460/2017

1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Through Secretary Vidhyut Bhawan, Vidhyut Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur Earlier Known As Rajasthan State Electricity Board Through Secretary Vidhyut Bhanwan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary Cpf Trust Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd Earlier Known As The Provident F, The Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

----Appellants Versus

1. Smt. Phoola Devi W/o Late Shri Om Prakash, R/o House No. 86, Ward No. 37, Gandhi Basti, Purani Abadi, Sriganganagar.

2. The Regional Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund And Miscellaneous Provisions Department, Nidhi Bhawan Vidhyut Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jodhpur.

3. The Superintendent Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Sriganganagar Now Known As Superintendent Engineer, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sriganganagar.

4. The Assistant Engineer City, The Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Sriganganagar Now Known As Assistant Engineer, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sriganganagar.

                                                      ----Respondents



For Appellant(s)      :    Mr Dhanesh Saraswat
For Respondent(s)     :    Mr M.R.Pareek
                           Mr Mukesh Purohit for Mr
                           C.S.Kotwani





                                          (2 of 5)               [SAW-460/2017]


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

                         Judgment / Order

11/11/2021 (PER HON'BLE BISHNOI,J.)

This appeal is filed by appellants being aggrieved with

the judgment dated 12.01.2017 passed by learned Single Judge of

this Court in SBCWP No.2026/2000, whereby the writ petition filed

by the respondent No.1 Smt. Phoola Devi has been allowed and

the appellants have been directed to give pension to her according

to the Scheme of Employees Pension Regulations, 1988 and

Employees General Provident Fund, 1988 along with interest. It

has also been ordered that all the pensionary benefits accrued to

the respondent No.1 shall be paid within a period of three months

at the rate of 9% simple interest.

Assailing the validity of the impugned judgment,

learned counsel for the appellants has argued that husband of the

respondent No.1 had never opted for Scheme of Employees

Pension Regulations, 1988 and Employees General Provident Fund,

1988 at any point of time during his life time and, therefore, the

respondent No.1 is not entitled to get any pensionary benefit from

the appellants and is only entitled for pension under Contributory

Provident Fund, which is to be paid by respondent - Employees

Provident Fund Organization and Miscellaneous Provisions

Department.

Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the

learned Single Judge has grossly erred in holding that the husband

of the respondent No.1 had opted Scheme of Employees Pension

Regulations, 1988 and as such the respondent No.1 is entitled to

(3 of 5) [SAW-460/2017]

get the pensionary benefits under the said Scheme by the

appellants only.

Learned counsel for the appellants has further

submitted that the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on

communication dated 29.10.1990 issued by the respondent No.2,

however, from perusal of the said communication, it is clear that

the appellants never admitted that the husband of the respondent

No.1 had opted EPF Scheme, 1988. Learned counsel for the

appellants has, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment

passed by the learned Single Judge may be set aside and the

Employees Provident Fund Organization and Miscellaneous

Provisions Department be directed to pay the family pension to

the respondent No.1.

The facts, not in dispute, are that the husband of the

respondent No.1 was working as Helper with Rajasthan State

Electricity Board now Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam

Limited (for short 'RRVPNL'); he expired on 23.09.1989 and the

respondent No.1 was appointed as Class-IV employee in his place.

However, when the respondent No.1 was not in receipt of pension,

she approached the RSEB, which refused to grant her relief

asserting that as her husband had not opted for EPF Scheme,

1988, she is not entitled to get pensionary benefits from the RSEB

but is entitled to get family pension from Employees Provident

Fund Organization and Miscellaneous Provisions Department.

When the respondent No.1 did not get any relief either

from the RSEB or from Employees Provident Fund Organization

and Miscellaneous Provisions Department, she preferred the above

referred writ petition before this Court, which came to be allowed

by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment and the

(4 of 5) [SAW-460/2017]

appellants were directed to give pension to the respondent No.1

according to the Scheme of Employees Pension Regulations, 1988

and Employees General Provident Fund, 1988.

It is noticed that the respondent No.2 in its reply to the

writ petition came with specific case that as per the available

office record, the husband of the respondent No.1 had opted RSEB

Pension Scheme 1988.

This Court vide order dated 02.09.2020 directed the

respondents to place on record the order dated 07.11.1990 issued

by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner referred to in notice

dated 11.05.1999 (Exhibit-6). Pursuant to that, the Regional

Provident Fund Commissioner, IInd wrote a letter dated

05.02.2021, which is placed on record. In the said letter, it is

clarified that the order dated 07.11.1990 was not the pension

payment order but it was only a credit information supplied to the

respondent No.1. In the letter dated 05.02.2021, it is also

mentioned that as per the Office Note and the Letter No.4760

dated 29.10.1996, the husband of the respondent No.1 opted for

GPF Scheme 1988 during his life time.

It is true that from letter dated 29.10.1990 - Exhibit-2

of the writ petition, it cannot be presumed that the appellants

have admitted that the husband of the respondent No.1 had opted

for GPF Scheme 1988 during his life time but from the reply to the

writ petition filed by the respondent No.2 and communication

dated 05.02.2021 written by the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, IInd, it is clear that the husband of the respondent

No.1, during his life time, had opted for the Scheme of RSEB now

RRVPNL known as GPF Scheme 1988.

(5 of 5) [SAW-460/2017]

It is noticed that the writ petition was filed by the

respondent No.1 way back in the year 2020 and till date, she has

not been paid pensionary benefits.

In view of the above discussions, we do not find any

case to interfere in the impugned judgment.

Hence, the appeal preferred by the appellants is

dismissed. The appellants are directed to give pension to the

respondent No.1 according to the Scheme of Employees Pension

Regulations, 1988 and Employees General Provident Fund, 1988

forthwith and the pensionary benefits accrued to her till date shall

be paid within a period of three months from today at the rate of

9% simple interest.

No costs.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J

43-masif/-PS

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)