Allowed

Hirday Ram and Others v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC13 Jun 2022CWP/1109/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners sought restoration of EPF pension stopped upon their earlier voluntary request. The Court, finding the request recorded in Annexure P-5, directed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to pay the EPF pension regularly from July 2022 and disburse arrears within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay EPF pension regularly from July 2022 by ignoring earlier request; arrears to be disbursed within two months.

Hirday Ram and Others Vs Regional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

ON THE 13^th DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL

¶5

CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 1109 OF 2021

¶6

Between:-

¶7

1. HIRDAY RAM S/O SHRI SHAYAHU RAM, AGED 77 YEARS, VILLAGE GHYANA, PO MORSINGHI, TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.

¶8

2. SHIV RAM, S/O SHRI GOKUL RAM, VILLAGE BHATOLI, PO MORSINGHI, TESHIL GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.

¶9

3. ROSHINI DEVI W/O LATE SHRI GAJJAN RAM, VILLAGE KHANSRA, PO RAGHUNATHPURA, TEHSIL SADAR, BILASPUR.

¶10

4. DHYAN SINGH, S/O SHRI MUNSHI RAM, VILLAGE CHHOTI BILYUR, PO JHANDUTTA, DISTRICT BILASPUR, HP.

¶11

5. JAGDISH SHARMA, S/O SHRI SANT RAM, VILLAGE SAKERLHI, PO NOVA, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR.

¶12

6. RATNI DEVI W/O LATE SHRI SHIV RAM, VPO NOVA, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR.

¶13

7. LEKH RAM S/O SHRI SHIV RAM, VILLAGE RAJPURA, PO NOVA, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR.

¶14

8. RATAN LAL S/O SHRI BUDHI RAM, VILLAGE TOLSARI, PO

¶15

¶16

CALLAR, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR.

¶17

9. MAST RAM CHILLA S/O SHRI BUDHI RAM, VILLAGE CHILLA, PO NOVA, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR.

¶18

10. CHET RAM BHARDWAJ, S/O SHRI JHUNDU RAM, VILLAGE LUHNU KANAITA, PO CHANDPUR, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR.

¶19

11. GURBACHAN SINGH, S/O SHRI NIRANJAN SINGH, VILLAGE DADOH, PO BASSI- KHEHLOOR, DISTRICT BILASPUR.

¶20

12. SUKH DEV SINGH, S/O SHRI MAGHI SINGH, VILLAGE KALYANPUR, PO BARUNA, TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN.

¶21

13. GOKAL RAM S/O SHRI SITA RAM, VILLAGE RATT, PO KOTHIPURA, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR.

¶22

14. HEM RAJ SHARMA, S/O JINNU RAM, VPO LADA, TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR.

¶23

15. BIMLA DEVI W/O LATE SHRI JAGDISH V. RAMPUR, PO RAGHUNATHPURA, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTT. BILASPUR.

¶24

16. DHANU RAM, S/O SHRI RAM DITTA, VILLAGE CHALETHI, PO RAJPURA, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT BILASPUR.

¶25

17. CHET RAM SHARMA, S/O SHHRI TIKHU RAM, VILLAGE BHATER, PO JAGAKHANA TEHSIL SADAR, BILASPUR.

¶26

18. NAVDEEP SHANDIL S/O LATE SHRI GANGA RAM, RESIDENT OF 158/B MAIN MARKET BILASPUR.

¶27

……….PETITIONERS

¶28

¶29

(BY MR. P.D. NANDA, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND

¶31

1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SDA COMPLEX, KASUMPATI SHIMLA 171009.

¶32

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, H.P. STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VAN NIGAM BHAWAN, SDA COMPLEX, KASUMPATI, SHIMLA, 171009.

¶33

……….RESPONDENTS

¶34

(MR. RAMAN SETHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; MR. VINOD K. THAKUR, ADVOCTE FOR R-2)

¶35

___________________________________________________________

¶36

Whether approved for reporting: No

¶37

This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court

¶38

passed the following:-

¶39

J U D G E M E N T

¶40

CMP No. 7024 of 2022

¶41

Having heard learned Counsel for the applicants, this

¶42

application is allowed as prayed for.

¶43

CWP No. 1109 of 2021

¶44

With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the

¶45

case was taken up for consideration today itself.

¶46

By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

¶47

¶48

“(i) The respondents may kindly be directed either to pay them the full pension as admissible under the Pension Scheme of 1999 or the EPF pension be restored from the date the payment of the same was stopped in May, 2005.

¶49

(ii) The respondents may be directed to pay interest @ 9% PA on the amount of EPF pension from 01.05.2005 till actual payment.

¶50

(iii) The respondent may also be directed to pay them regularly eight the EPF pension by the RPFC or the respondent Corporation shall not affect recovery of EPF Pension from the pension payable to them under Pension Scheme 1999.”

¶51

The contention of the petitioners is that by the factum of their having superannuated in between 01.04.1999 to 02.12.2004, they are entitled to pension computable in terms of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 as per the notification issued by the government dated 29.10.1999 Annexure P-1. Their grievance is that the pension which presently is being paid to them, is being paid by deducting the quantum of the amount which they are entitled to receive under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme but respondent No. 1 is also not paying them the

¶52

¶53

amount of said Fund, which is being deducted from their pension by respondent No. 2.

¶54

Mr. Raman Sethi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, while drawing the attention of the Court of Annexure P-5 appended with the petition, has submitted that it is not as if respondent No. 1 on its own has stopped disbursal of EPF to the petitioners but this is on account a request which has been received from the petitioners by respondent No. 1, as is evident from Annexure P-5 appended with the petition. He further submitted that respondent No. 1 also made an enquiry in this regard from respondent No. 2 and it was informed by respondent No. 2 by way of communication dated 22.02.2020 (Annexure R1/C) that said act of the petitioners was voluntary.

¶55

Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that the petitioners are entitled to the pension in terms of CSP Scheme as well as the benefits under the EPF but the benefits which they are entitled under EPF scheme have to be deducted from the sum total of their pension, qua which, there is no dispute between the parties, including respondent No. 2. As it is only Annexure P-5 which is coming in the way of respondent No. 1 in releasing the requisite amount, as is payable to the petitioner under EPF Scheme, it is ordered that from the month of July, 2022, said

¶56

¶57

amount be paid regularly by respondent No. 1 to the petitioners by ignoring Annexure P-5 for all purposes as agreed, subject to the petitioners fulfilling codal formalities within a period of two weeks from today. As far as arrears are concerned, let the same be disbursed to the petitioners within a period of two months from today.

¶58

With these directions, the petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶59

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 13, 2022 (narender)

Hirday Ram and Others v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hirday Ram and Others v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabita Kumari Vs State of Hp

Raj Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Tarsaim Kumar Vs Hppsc

H.P. Election Department Non Gazetted Employees Association Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Bal Krishan and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.