Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12854 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Jai Ram Ojha S/O Late Bina Ojha R/O Vill.- Nawadih, P.S.- Bihia, Distt.- Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary Ministry Of Steel, Govt. Of India, New Delhi 2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, R. Block, Patna 3. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jharkhand at Ranchi 4. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension), Bihar R. Block, Patna, Bihar 5. The State Of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Industry Jharkhand, Ranchi 6. The Managing Director, Steel Authority of India, Cold Rolling Mill, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro, Jharkhand 7. The Senior Personnel Officer, Bokaro Steel Plant, Personnel Department, RGBS, Bokaro, Jharkhand 8. The Assistant Manager, Personal, Strategic Planning, Steel Authority of India Ltd. Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro, Jharkhand .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jai Ram Ojha ( in person) For E.P.F.O : Mr. R.S.Pradhan,Sr.Adv. For respondent nos.2 and 4 : M/s Sanjeev Nikesh and Jainandra Kumar For respondent nos. 6 to 8 : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Sr.Adv. Mrs.Sangeeta Sharma, Mr. Ranjan Deby and Mr. Rakesh Chandra For State of Jharkhand : Mr.Sanjiv Jaiswal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL ORDER 5 19-03-2013 The petitioner is aggrieved by letter dated 4.1.2011 issued by Employees Provident Fund Organization whereby his monthly pension has been fixed at Rs. 785/- with effect from 25.12.2002.According to the petitioner, he had served in Bokaro Steel Plant, a unit of the Steel Authority of India Limited since
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.12854 of 2011 (5) dt.19-03-2013 2 1.3.1973 to 31.8.1998 and accordingly was entitled to much higher monthly pension. He submits that the authority of Bokaro Steel Plant has victimized him and has joined the hands with the Employees Provident Fund to deprive of his due pension. The petitioner appears in person. Pleadings are
Decision
complete and as such the matter is being disposed of at this stage itself with the consent of all the parties. Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivdi, learned Senior Counsel appears on behalf of Steel Authority of India Limited and Mr. R.S. Pradhan, learned Senior Counsel appears on behalf of Employees Provident Fund. In the writ petition, the petitioner states that he joined Bokaro Steel Plant on 1.3.1973 and was forced to take voluntary retirement on 31.8.1998 . According to him he had thus served Bokaro Steel Plant for over 25 years and as such all calculation for payment of pension had to be done taking into account this entire period. He states that he was originally covered under Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and as such he should have got much higher pension. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Steel Authority of India Limited and in particular Bokaro Steel plant in which it has been mentioned that the petitioner has Patna High Court CWJC No.12854 of 2011 (5) dt.19-03-2013 3 suppressed material facts. It is stated that the petitioner joined as a Fitter on 1.3.1973. On 19.11.1984 onwards he absented without authorization. He was, accordingly, dismissed with effect from 19.1.1984. The petitioner did not challenge his dismissal ever instead he made an application to Bokaro Steel plant for his re- appointment on compassionate ground. Having considered the matter, the authority acceded to re-appointment him on compassionate ground and as such upon petitioner’s application for re-appointment he was re-appointed with effect from 9.2.1985. The petitioner’s application for re- appointment and the re-appointment letter have been annexed to the supplementary counter affidavit. In the same the petitioner has accepted to raise no claim as against the authority for his past service. He continued as such and ultimately in terms of Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 1995, he took voluntary retirement with effect from 30.8.1998.Thus, there was a break in service in between 20.11.1984 to 8.2.1985. It was not a case of continuance of service. These were material facts which the petitioner had virtually concealed. However, this Court does not intend to dismiss the writ petition on this ground of suppression of material facts as even otherwise the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. As noted above, the primary grievance of the petitioner Patna High Court CWJC No.12854 of 2011 (5) dt.19-03-2013 4 is as against the authority of Employees Provident Fund. A supplementary affidavit on behalf of Employees Provident Fund Authority has also been filed. In that it is clearly stated that earlier the petitioner was a contributory member of the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971. He continued as such up to 19.11.1984. Upon his dismissal the benefits arising there under got frozen. He was then re- appointed with the break aforesaid. He continued up to 16.11.1995 when the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 came into force replacing Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971.Thus, when the petitioner took voluntary retirement with effect from 13.8.1996, his benefits had to be calculated on basis of first being member of the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 in between the period 1.3.1973 to 16.11.1995 and then as a member of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 from 16.11.1995 to 13.8.1998. The detailed calculations as per scheme have been given in this supplementary counter affidavit showing how the benefits have been calculated. It is also shown that though upon actual calculation the formula given in the scheme, his pension payable is much less he had been granted the minimum that is payable which was much higher than his entitlement. Having considered the matter, in my view, in the facts Patna High Court CWJC No.12854 of 2011 (5) dt.19-03-2013 5 and circumstances, noted above, no exception can be taken to the mode and manner of calculation of the benefits, as made by the Employees Provident Fund Authority. Even in Annexure 2 clearly two periods have been mentioned. It has been mentioned that taking into account basis of past benefits under the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 as also the benefits under Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1995, his pension was fixed. In that view of the matter there is no error on this account. Had the petitioner worked longer instead of taking voluntary retirement almost five years before his date of superannuation he would have been entitled to much higher pension but as the petitioner chose to seek voluntary retirement at an early date naturally his pension would be far less. In that view of the matter I find no merit in this application and the application is dismissed. State of Jharkhand is represented and has no objection to the above order. (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J) singh/-