Writ petition for revision of decision rejecting petitioner's request to opt for Pension Scheme post-retirement. Court held no enforceable right existed for extended option after service severance and settlement.
Writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 09.06.2011
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU
Writ Petition No. 7977 of 2006
T.Venkatachalam
.... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Secretary to Government Ministry of Labour Government of India
No.14, Bhikhaji Cama Palace
New Delhi – 110 066.
2.Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
Employees Provident Fund Organization (HO) Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan 14, Bhikaji Cama Palace
New Delhi-110 066.
3.Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
Employees Provident Fund Organization Sub-Regional Office
Trichy-620 008.
.... Respondents
PETITION under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to the decision contained in their reply letter No. Ref.CSD/III/PGHS/0003808/PMO/TN/2000, dated 10.07.2000/dated 17.11.2000 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to approve the proposal of permitting option to the non-optee Family Pension Fund, 1971, to members who left between 01.04.1993 and 15.11.1995 and withdraw the Provident Fund Money.
For Petitioner : Ms.M.Santhini
For Respondents: Mr.S.Vaidyanathan for R.1
Mr.K.Gunasekaran for R.2 and R.3
O R D E R
Heard the arguments of Ms.M.Santhini, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.S.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel for the first respondent; and Mr.K.Gunasekaran, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3.
(i) The petitioner was an employee working in TANSI Engineering Works, Karur. He was a member of the Provident Fund w.e.f. 01.10.1967. He retired from service on 31.05.1994. After his retirement, the entire Provident Fund standing to his credit was settled in his favour during July, 1994.
(ii) The Central Government introduced a pensionary benefit scheme in addition to provident fund, known as, Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971. The said Scheme was an optional one for the provident fund subscribers. An option was given to the existing provident fund members to avail the said Pension Scheme, which was introduced w.e.f. 01.03.1971. The petitioner for reasons best known to him, did not exercise his option.
(iii) Subsequently, the Central Government issued a statutory notification in G.S.R.No. 500, dated 03.06.1988, permitting the employees, who have not opted for the Pension Scheme to opt for the said Scheme, on condition that they should make contribution, which would have been diverted from the Provident Fund to the Employees Family Pension Fund. Even after such extended option, the petitioner did not opt for the Scheme.
(iv) Subsequently, the Central Government introduced a new Pension Scheme, known as, Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. While Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971, was optional for the existing members, Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, was made compulsory for the new entrants. In respect of the persons, who have not opted in 1971, they can chose to avail the new Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. In paragraph No. 7 of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, the option was also given for persons, who have died between 01.04.1993 to 15.11.1995, deemed to have opted for the new Scheme. Under paragraph No. 6 of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, it was also indicated that the person, who ceased to be the member of the Employees' Family
Pension Scheme, 1971, between 01.04.1993 and 15.11.1995, should exercise his option to come over to the new Scheme; that was also permitted, subject to the condition of payment of the deficit contribution.
(v) The case of the petitioner is that he does not fall either under Paragraph No. 6 or Paragraph No. 7 of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. According to him, he sent a letter dated 24.09.1997 beyond the option period and requested his coverage. He was informed by the third respondent-Employees' Provident Fund Organization, by a communication dated 03.10.1997 that since there was no amendment made under the Scheme, the request cannot be considered. Subsequently, the petitioner was once again informed that several applications in this regard were made to the Central Government and the opinion of the Central Government is awaited and suitable action will be taken after the opinion is received from the Central Government. At this stage, the petitioner sent a representation, dated 19.12.1998, asking for permission to join the new Scheme by relaxing the period of exercising such option. It is pursuant to the said representation, the impugned communication came to be issued.
based upon the subscriptions made by the employee and the employer. The Scheme relating to pension is statutorily covered and the employee, who likes to exercise the option to join the Scheme was offered enough time and now, the petitioner cannot seek for extended option, to exercise his option for joining the Scheme, which does not now exist in his favour, after retiring from service and after getting his Provident Fund account settled. In the light of the above, there being no enforceable right in favour of the petitioner, this Writ Petition is misconceived. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst.Registrar
paa
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Ministry of Labour
Government of India
No.14, Bhikhaji Cama Palace
New Delhi – 110 066.
Writ Petition No. 7977 of 2006 MDR(CO) SRA(27/6/2011)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a retired employee can seek an extended option to join the Pension Scheme after severance of service and settlement of Provident Fund.
Whether the Central Government has any statutory obligation to permit retrospective option for a non-optee member.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
T.Venkatachalam
Secretary to Government Ministry of Labour Government of India
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization (HO)
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization Sub-Regional Office
K.Chandru
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
