J.S. Chandrasekhar, ... vs The Regional Provident Fund ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 679 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                       AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI


                 WRIT APPEAL No.1341 of 2008

JUDGMENT:    (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)



      The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated

15.04.2008 passed in W.P.No.13590 of 1999.

      The writ petitioner/appellant before this Court has filed a

writ petition before the learned Single Judge being aggrieved by the

action of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, A.P., in the

matter of fixation of pension. He came up with the case stating

that his pension has been fixed at Rs.437/- instead of Rs.835/-

with effect from 30.06.1997 in terms of Rule 12 of the Employees

Pension Scheme, 1995 (for short, "the Scheme") with annual

increments thereof.

      The undisputed facts of the case reveal that that the writ

petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.1997

(57 years of age) and has completed 25 years of service. Rule 12 of

the Scheme is reproduced as under:



      The aforesaid statutory provision of law provides for deemed

service and the deemed service rendered by the petitioner was 27

years as per paragraph 12(5) of the Scheme and in that context, he

came up before this Court claiming minimum pension of Rs.835/-.

      A detailed reply has been filed in the matter and the

respondent-Provident Fund Commissioner has brought to the

notice of this Court a clarification dated 10.05.1999 issued by the

Central Government in the matter for fixation of pension, which

was issued to clarify paragraph 12 of the Scheme. The pension of

the writ petitioner has been fixed in the light of the aforesaid

clarification. The learned Single Judge taking into account the

aforesaid clarification has held as under:

"The Central Government vide its letter No.R015025/01/99-SS-II, Government of India/Bharat Sarkar, Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi, dated 10thMay, 1999 has clarified the matter, which reads as under:

"Sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of Paragraphs 12(3), 12 (4) and 12 (5) are to be read independent of the words "subject to a minimum of Rs.800/-", subject to a minimum of Rs.600/- and "subject to a minimum of Rs.500/-" provided the past service is 24 years. IN other words, a person will be entitled to a minimum pension of Rs.800/-, Rs.600/- or Rs.500/-, as the case may be, only if;

(i)On the date of his supernnuation on attaining the age of 58 years, he had rendered 24 years of service; and

(ii)The aggregate of (a) and (b) under paragraphs 12 (3), 12 (4) and 12 (5) as the case may be, les than the prescribed minimum of Rs.800/-, Rs.600 or Rs.500/- as the case may be.

It is further clarified that in case the past service ie., eligible service on the date of attaining 58 years of age is less than 24 years of service, pension (i.e., pension according to formula) and the benefit (i.e, the past service benefit) will be reduced proportionately and in such cases, the minimum pension and past service benefit taken together will be Rs.450/- p.m., Rs.325/- p.m and Rs.265/- p.m. respectively.

This may be treated as interpretation of the provisions of paragraph 12 decided by the Central Government under paragraph 41 of the EPS, 1995."

The above said clarification was issued with regard to paragraph 12 of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner made a faint effort to dispute as to the clarification given by the Central Government, but did not place before this Court any material to show that the clarification issued by the Central Government was not correct or was not at all issued by the Central Government.

In view of the above clarification issued by the Central Government under paragraph 12 of the Employees' Pension scheme, 1995, I am of the opinion that since the petitioner retired from service before attaining the age of superannuation at the end of 57 years, he was entitled for only Rs.500/- and above and not Rs.835/- as claimed by the petitioner. In fact, the respondents have paid Rs.532/-

as monthly pension as per the provisions of the scheme. In view of the same, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

In the light of the aforesaid clarification, as the pension of

the writ petitioner/appellant has already been calculated, before

attaining the age of superannuation, based upon the formula

provided in the clarification, this Court does not find any reason to

interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 16.02.2022 ES