The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.41091 of 2021 Samsum Nisha …. Petitioner Smt. Sujata Jena, Advocate -versus- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhubaneswar and another …. Opp. Parties CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Mr. Aurovinda Mohanty, Advocate Order No. ORDER 10.02.2023 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Smt. Sujata Jena, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as Mr. Aurovinda Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties. Perused the pleadings as well as documents filed by the respective parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- “In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner respectfully prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit this case, issue notice t the Opp. Parties specifically to Opp. Party No.2 to show cause as to why the Letter dated 10.11.2021 under Annexure-2 shall not be quashed and if the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the Hon’ble Court upon hearing // 2 // the parties may further be pleased to allow this writ petition by quashing Annexure-2 and directing the Opp. Party No.2 to accept date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate and grant her pension as per pension 95 scheme and may be further pleased order/orders, such direction/directions as may be deemed expedient in the interest of justice. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall every pray other pass to 4. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is that the husband of the Petitioner, namely Late Abdul Matlub was working as a Mechanic in the Titagarh Paper Mills and on attaining the age of superannuation, he had retired from service w.e.f. 30.06.2001. After his retirement, the husband of the Petitioner was getting regular pension till his death, i.e., 19.10.2020. After the death of the husband of the Petitioner and as per the E.P.F. Scheme, the Petitioner is entitled to and was allowed to draw pension as a beneficiary of the deceased employee. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that after the death of the husband of the Petitioner, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Parties for grant of family pension and, accordingly, submitted all the relevant documents like death certificate, bank account number and other pension details. However, the office of the Opposite Party No.2 vide // 3 // letter dated 10.11.2021 returned all the documents to the Petitioner along with her application on the ground that the date of birth of the beneficiary submitted by the husband is not tallying with her Aadhaar Card and requested to correct the date of birth on the basis of the matriculation certificate is not acceptable. Besides, above, the name of the daughter as mentioned in the birth certificate has also been altered and, accordingly, the Petitioner was directed to resubmit the correct death certificate of the deceased pensioner with correct Aadhaar Card copy and bank pass book copy. Thereafter, although the Petitioner approached the Opposite Parties for payment of family pension, the Opposite Parties have not taken any action which has compelled the Petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the actual date of birth of the Petitioner as is mentioned in the certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education is 06.05.1966. However, while furnishing the details, her husband inadvertently might have submitted a wrong date of birth and as it appears, the date it has been given by her husband is // 4 // 01.07.1966. It is further contended that although the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.2 for correction her death of birth taking into consideration the matriculation certificate, such request was turned down by the authorities on the ground that there is no module available in E.P.F. Office software to rectify the date of birth after issuance PPO. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also contended that the Petitioner is a widow lady faces a lot of hardship. She is unable to get the family pension which she lawfully entitled to and that the inaction on the part of the authorities has multiplied the difficulties faced by the Petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties has filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the Opposite Parties have taken a ground that since as a discrepancy with regard to the death of birth of the present Petitioner, the application of the Petitioner could not be processed and, accordingly, such application has been returned to the Petitioner with a request to correct the date of birth of the Petitioner. In paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated categorically that the Petitioner has not shown any proof of certificate and submission // 5 // of documents as required for processing of her claim for widow pension, however, it has also been stated that if the Petitioner comply the shortcoming as pointed out by the Opposite Parties- EPF Authorities, then the case of the Petitioner will be considered at the earliest. 9. Mr. A Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties by referring to Paragraphs-15 and 16 of the counter affidavit submitted that in the documents submitted by the Petitioner, the name of the father of the deceased husband of the Petitioner has been given as “Sk. Irsad Mohammad” whereas in the death certificate it has been written as “Irsad Mohammed”. Further, referring to Paragraph-16 of the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that in the birth certificate of the daughter of the Petitioner, the name has been mentioned as “Ranaq Perwin” whereas in the School Certificate and the Bank Passbook, the name has been mentioned as “Raunaque Afroz”. In such view of the matter, learned counsel appealing for the Opposite Parties submitted that unless the aforesaid two discrepancies are reconciled, then it would be difficulties on the part of the Opposite Parties to // 6 // process claim of the Petitioner. 10. In reply to the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner by referring to Annexure-1 submitted that the name of the daughter had been changed by following the due process of law which had not intimated by the late husband of the Petitioner due to negligence and callousness. 11. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and upon a careful consideration of the materials placed before this Court, this Court observed that no doubt there certain miner discrepancies in the name of the daughter as well as in the name of the father of the late husband of the Petitioner. However, those discrepancies cannot stand on the way of the Petitioner in getting her widow pension. This Court is also of the view that the relevant consideration for grant of widow pension should be the authority in favour of the Petitioner and the identity of the Petitioner. There is no quarrel with regard to the fact that the Petitioner is the wife of the deceased Abdul Matlub. However, while providing information, certain clerical/typographical errors have crept into the records and further the rectifications of such errors are very much // 7 // permissible in law. Law is well settled that right to get pension has been included within the expanded scope of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, denying the pensionary benefits on silly grounds would amount to tinkering with the fundamental right of a citizen as has been guaranteed under the Constitution of India. 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid broader principle, this Court is also of the considered view that the authority should have granted the pensionary benefits in favour of the Petitioner by taking an undertaking from the Petitioner or by rectifying the mistakes basing upon affidavit of the Petitioner. 13. In such view of the matter, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Opposite Parties to rectify the mistake on the basis of affidavit to be filed by the Petitioner and further they may also take an indemnity bond from the Petitioner indemnify the Opposite Parties in the event of any future liability that would arise, if any other persons claim such pensionary benefits as beneficiary of the deceased employee. 14. Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to furnish an // 8 // affidavit as well as indemnity bond executed in favour of the Opposite Parties within a week from today. On production of such documents, the Opposite Parties shall process the claim of the Petitioner within four weeks from today and disburse the widow pension in favour of the Petitioner within the aforesaid time. Opposite Parties are directed to act upon production of certified copy of this order. 15. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ
Decision
petition is disposed of. 16. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis