Disposed

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

Chhattisgarh HC24 Oct 2007WPS/6237/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Food Corporation of India and EPFO to expedite the fixation of pension for a retired petitioner facing a delay of nearly three years, invoking the 30-day timeline of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995.

What did the court decide?

Director to forward documents to Pension Commissioner within 60 days or dispose of representation; Petitioner to file representation within 3 weeks.

B.R. Dhruv Vs Food Corporation of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2007)

¶1

:-;K"^.i^;^.^i^

¶2

^(^

¶3

HIGH^OURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (81 No. 6237 of2007

¶5

B.R. Dhmv, S/o Late Shri R.B.Dhruv, Aged about 59 years, R/o - Q. No. 8/366, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

Food Corporation of India, Through - Managing Director, Head Quarter - New Delhi, 16-20 Barakhamba Lane, NEW DELHI

¶7

The Executive Director,

¶8

Food Corporation of India, Dhiraj Anua BuUdiug, Near Anaat Kaiiekar Police Statiou, Baadra (East) MUMBAI^- 400051

¶9

The General Maiiager, Food Corporation of India, Ring Road Chouraha, TeUbandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

The Area Maiiager, Food Corporatibn of India, Madeena Building, Jafl Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

The Eiuployees Provident Fuiid Orgaaization, Through Conunissioner, Regioual Ofilce, 8th & 9th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Circus, New Dellu - 1.

¶12

WRIT PETITIQN UNDERARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

¶13

W.P. No. rS) 6237 of 2007

¶14

AppeaifMice:

¶15

Shri Paukaj Shrivastava, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.P. Gupta for reapondents No.l to 4 being Senior Counsel iu the pauel of fhe Food Corporation of India.

¶16

ORALQRDER (24.10.2007)

¶17

SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶18

Heard finafly with the consent ofboth the parties.

¶19

Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner submits that respondent No.l is not forwarding necessary particulars to respondent No.5 regarding deduction inade from. the salaiy ofthe petitioner ia. order to enable respondent No.5 to fix the pension offb.e petitioner. He further subnuts fhat ftie Employees' Pension Scheine, 1995 is applicable ia case of fhe petitioner aad as per Clause 17A of fhe said scheme, respondent No.5 is bound to fix fhe pension of fhe petitioner wifhin a period of 30 days from. fhe date of receipt of fhe conceraed docuiaents by fhe Coinmissioner. He subaiits fhat the petitioner has retiied in ttie year 2004, but even after a lapse of about 2 years 10 months, the pensiou of the petitioner has not been fixed.

¶20

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

¶21

CIause 17A offhe Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 referred to by leamed counsel for the petitioner is quoted as under :

¶22

17A. Payment of Pensiou

¶23

The claims, coiuplete in aU. respects subiuitted along with the requisite docuiaents sfaaU be settled and benefit amount paid to fh.e beneficiaries withia 30 days from the date of its receipt by the Commissioner. If fbere is any deficiency in the claiiu, ttie sarae shalt be recorded ia writnig aad communicated to the applicant within 30 days fi-oiii fhe date of receipt of such appUcation. In case, ftie Commissioner fails wifhout sufficient cause to settle a claim coruplete ia all respeets withia 30 days, fhe Commissioner

¶24

W.P.No.(S) 6237 of 2007

¶25

¶26

shaU be liable for the delay beyond fhe said period and penal interest at fhe rate of 12 per cent per annuia niay be cliarged on fhe benefit am.oiuit and fhe saine inay be deducted froia the salary ofttie Coiumissioner.

¶27

In view of the above, ia the opinion of this Court, fhe ends of justice would be served if' the petitioner is directed to inake a representation before respondent No.l and respondent No.l is directed to dispose of fhe sam.e wifhia the stipulated period granted by fhis Court.

¶28

Accorduigly, it is directed that if so advised, the petitioner iiiay file a detafled representation before respondent No.l along with a copy of fhis order aad a copy of fhe Writ Petition wifhin a period of 3 weeks froin today aad if such a representation is ffled and fhe concemed docuiaents of fhe petitioner have not been forwarded by respondent No.l to respondent No.5, respondent No. I, ia tura, shall examuie fhe poiats raised by the petitioner and fonvarcl fhe papers relating to the pension of fhe petitioner to respondent No.5 wifhin a period of60 days from the date ofreceipt of fhe said representation or shall dispose of the representation in accordauce with law within the said period.

¶29

In case, fhe conceraed docuuients of fhe petitioner are already forwarded, ffais order shaU carry no force.

¶30

With the aforesaid observation/direction, this petition stauds iinaUy disposed of.

¶31

Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge

¶32

Shyna

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.R. Dhruv 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.

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