Suraj Prakash v. The Registrar P.F. Commissioner, Chandigarh

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.Raman Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuing direction declaring the Notification dated 15.06.2007, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 7(1) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, amending the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 with retrospective effect, i.e., from the date of coming into force of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was working in the Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited, Chandigarh . He was a member of the Provident Fund having Account No.PN/5180/496. He was also member of Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 up to 15.11.1995. Thereafter the said Scheme was replaced with Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 w.e.f. C.W.P. No.4926 of 2009 -2-

16.11.1995. The petitioner became its member also. He retired from service on 31.10.1996 on attaining the age of superannuation. The respondent issued the Pension Payment Order dated

6.5.1997 to the petitioner for grant of retirement pension @ Rs.513/- per month w.e.f. 1.11.1996. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the amount of pension, filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Bathinda. He claimed that in terms of sub-para 5 of para 12 of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, the pension of the petitioner should have been fixed @ Rs.835/- per month instead of Rs.513/- per month, as fixed by the respondent. The District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint of the petitioner vide order dated 30.5.2001. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The said appeal has also been dismissed by the State Consumer Forum while coming to the conclusion that the respondent has rightly fixed the pension of the petitioner. Instead of approaching the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by filing an appeal, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the aforesaid amendment made in the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995.

It is not disputed that the respondent has given the minimum pension of Rs.335/- per month under para 12(5)(a) of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. It is the case of the petitioner that he is also entitled to Rs.500/- as minimum pension for past service benefit. If the basic amount of para 12(5)(a) i.e. Rs.335/- per month is added with the minimum of Rs.500/- under para 12(5)(b) then the petitioner is entitled to Rs.835/- per month as pension. By the aforesaid amendment made by Notification dated 15.6.2007, the Government has clarified that the minimum amount fixed as Rs.500/- per month has to be considered as a C.W.P. No.4926 of 2009 -3- consolidated amount under paras 12(5)(a) and 12(5)(b) and the benefit given in these two paras is not to be counted separately. In my opinion, by the impugned amendment, only a clarification has been issued and no benefit already accrued to the petitioner has been withdrawn or reduced.

The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Chairman, Railway Board and others v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah and others, AIR 1997 SC 3828, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case, as in that case, reduction of maximum limit of running allowance for computing the pension and retiral benefits in case of running staff, such as Drivers, Guards, Shunters, etc., who were connected with the movement of trains, from 75% to 45% for period from January 1, 1973 to March 31, 1979 and to 55% from April 1, 1979 onwards, was held to be illegal. In my opinion, vide the impugned Notification only a clarification has been issued from the date of coming into force of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. Thus, I do not find any illegality in issuing the said Notification. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. March 30, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE