Disposed

S.L. Baghel v. Food Corporation of India and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC24 Oct 2007WPS/6232/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court directed the Food Corporation of India to forward documents regarding the petitioner's salary deductions to the EPFO to fix his pension within 60 days or dispose of any representation accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to make a representation before Respondent No.1 within 3 weeks; Respondent No.1 to forward documents to Respondent No.5 or dispose of the representation within 60 days.

S.L. Baghel Vs Food Corporation of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2007)

¶1

:-'l- •F5"

¶2

HIffliCOURT OF CHiIATTISGARH, BXLASPUR

¶3

WritJPetItion (Sj No. ft232^f 2007

¶4

¶5

S.L.Baghel, S/o Late Shri Bahoraa Baghel, Aged about 62 years, R/o Kawasi Para, Near Govt.School, Sadar Bazar Ward, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

Versus

¶7

RESPONDENTS 1 Food Corporatiou oflndia, Through - Managiag Director, Head Quarter - Neiv DeUu, 16-20 Barakhamba Laae, NEW DELHI 2 The Executive Director, Food Corporation ofladia, DIiiraj Arma Bufldiug, Near Anant Kaaekar PoUce. Station, Bandra (East) MUMBAI-400051

¶8

3 The Geueral Manager, Food Corporation of India, Ring Road Chouraha, TeUbandha, Raipur, Chliattisgarh.

¶9

4 Tbe Area Mauager, Food Corporation of India, Madeena Biulduig, Jail Road, Raipur, Chhatdsgarh.

¶10

5 The Eniployees Provident Fund Or^anization, Through - Conunissioner, Regional OfEce, gtb & gtb pioor, Mayur Bhawan, Couaaught Circus, New Delhi^- 1.

¶11

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶12

W.P.No.(S) 6232 of 2007

¶13

Appearaace:

¶14

Shri Panlcaj Shrivastava, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P. Gupta for respondents No.l to 4 being Senior Counsel ia the panel ofthe Food Corporation oflndia.

ORALORDER

(24.10.2007)

SUNILKUMAJR.S!NHA,J.

Heard finally with the consent ofboth the parties.

¶19

Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.l is not forwardiag necessary particulars to respondent No.5 regarding deduction miade froni fhe salary of fhe petitioner ia order to enable respondent No.5 to fix the pension of fhe petitioner. He further subxnits that fhe Eniployees' Peusion Scheine, 1995 is appUcable in case of fhe petitioner and as per Clause 17A of the said scheme, respondent No.5 is bouad to fix the pension of fhe petitioner withia a period of 30 days froin the date of receipt of fhe concemed docuinents by the Conrmissioner. He subiiiits that the petitioner has retired in fhe year 2004, but even after a lapse of about 2 years 10 inonfhs, fhe pension of fhe petitioner has not been fixed.

¶20

I have heard learaed counsel for the parties and have also perused the records of the Writ Petition.

¶21

Clause 17A ofthe Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 referred to by leamed counsel for fhe petitioner is quoted as under:

¶22

17A. Payment of Pension

¶23

The clauns, coinplete i& all respects subnutted along witli the requisite documents shaU be settied and benefit amount paid to the beneficiaries wifhin 30 days from ftie date of its receipt by the Coininissioner. If fhere is any deficiency in fhe claiin, fhe same shatl be recorded iu writing and coininuiiicated to fhe applicaat wifhia 30 days fi-oiu fhe date of receipt of such appUcation. In case, the Coiamissioner fails without sufficient cause to setde a claun

¶24

W.P. No.fS) 6232 of 2007

¶25

coinplete in all respects within 30 days, the Conunissioner shatt be liable for fhe delay beyond the said period and penal interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum inay be chai^ed on the benefit amount aad the same may be deducted froin fhe salaiy of the Coianiissioner. •''

¶26

In view offhe above, ia fhe opmion ofthis Court, the ends of justice would be served if fhe petitioner is directed to inake a representation before respondent No.l and respondent No.l is directed to dispose of fhe saine wifhia the stipulated period granted^byfhisCourt.

¶27

Accordingly, it is directed fhat if so advised, the petitioner inay file a detailed representation before respondent No.l along with a copy of this order and a copy of the Writ Petition wifhin a period of 3 weeks fi-oiu today and if such a representation is filed and the concemed documents of the petitioner have not been forwarded by rcspondent No.l to respondent No.5, respondent No. 1, in tum, sIiaU examine fhe points raised by fhe petitioner and forward fhe papers relatlng to fhe peasion of fhe petitioner to respoudent No.5 wifhia a period of60 days froin the date ofreceipt of the said representation or shall dispose of fhe representation ia accordaace with law wifhia the said period.

¶28

In case, fhe concemed documents of fhe petitioner are already forwarded, this order shaU cany no force.

¶29

Wifh fhe aforesaid observation/direction, this petition stands finaUy disposed of.

¶30

Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge

¶31

Shyna

¶32

S.L. Baghel v. Food Corporation of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.L. Baghel v. Food Corporation of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kiran Paul Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kamal Narayan Sahu and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

K.P. Dewangan Vs Raigarh Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Anr.

Nisha Ogare Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

M.R. Sahu Vs Food Corporation of India and Ors.

B.R. Dhruv Vs Food Corporation of India and Ors.