Ganpat S/O Punjaji Chauke Vs the Provident Fund Commissioner, Provident Fund Sub-Regional Office, Akola and Another

The record indicates, that the petitioner, who was initially appointed on 12/12/1969, was terminated on 31/07/1989 and was reinstated in terms of the compromise dated 31/07/1997 (Pg.21), thereby granting him continuity of services. Since the applicability of the pension scheme to the employees of the respondent No.2-Bank during the employment of the petitioner, who is claimed to have superannuated in 2001, is not disputed, nor is it disputed, that GPF contribution of the employer for the entire duration has been paid as per the statement of Mr. Tathod, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, it would be necessary to examine the pension scheme, which has been made applicable to the petitioner. In terms of the pension scheme, which is the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, the petitioner has to complete minimum period of 10 yrs as an

¶13

2 10wp3383.2022..odt

¶14

employee to be eligible for grant of pension. In the instant case, what is necessary to note, is that after the initial termination of the services of the petitioner on 31.7.1989, the petitioner withdrew the entire amount to the credit of the petitioner in the PF and Pension Fund Account as a result of which, pension fund account came closed.

¶15

Consequent to the reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity in terms of the compromise dated 31.7.1997 (p21) the petitioner, who superannuated on 31.5.2001, again received the entire amount in lump-sum, being in his pension account on 28.11.2002 and the pension account came to be closed. The petitioner thereafter, approached the Consumer Forum in 2012 with a complaint seeking entitlement to pension, which came to be dismissed on 21.12.2012 (p1 of the Pursis dated 6.7.2022) challenge against which to the State Commission came to be dismissed on 3.5.17(p8) further challenge to the National Commission also came to be dismissed on 22.11.2018 (p15).

¶16

Para 14 of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, indicates that a person leaving the employment has an option to receive the entire amount in lump-sum. The petitioner having received such amount is not now entitled to go back upon the same and seek entitlement to pension, more so, when the amount of the pension fund has been received and utilized by the petitioner since 2002. We

¶17

3 10wp3383.2022..odt

¶18

therefore, do not see any reason to interfere, the petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶19

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶20

Belkhede

Ganpat S/O Punjaji Chauke v. the Provident Fund Commissioner, Provident Fund Sub-Regional Office, Akola and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganpat S/O Punjaji Chauke v. the Provident Fund Commissioner, Provident Fund Sub-Regional Office, Akola and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Ramchandra Maharaj Sewabhavi Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Thr. Member, Vijay R. Kokre Vs State of Maha., Thr. Its Additional Chief Secretary, Tribal Development Dept., Mumbai and Others

Mangalsingh Amarsingh Rathod Vs Mahatma Phule Shikshan Sanstha, Nimgaon, Thr. President and Conveynor of Inquiry,K.R. Ingle and Ors.

Ku. Swati Ratnakarrao Hantodkar vs Zilla Parishad, Amravati, Thr. Chief Executive Officer

Mohd. Sharif Raza Mohd Isshak and Others Vs State of Maha., Thr. Its Secretary for Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Another

Sushil S/O Rajendra Thakur and Others Vs the Sub-Divisional Officer, Daryapur, Amravati and Another

Mayuri W/O. Ravindra Meshram vs Coal India Limited, Thr. Its Chairman, Jbcci-Xi, Rajarghat, Kolkatta and Others