Court remitted a pension claim rejection to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to verify if the petitioner completed ten years of service by excluding a period of absence.
Matter remitted to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhubaneswar to verify calculation of service years excluding absence.
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.
W.P.(C) No.11182 of 2011
4.8.2016
This writ petition has been filed to quash Annexure-3 dated 20.11.2010 by which claim
of the petitioner for getting pension has been rejected on the ground that there is break in p
ast service i.e., service below 10 years.
Grievance of the petitioner is that she has joined under opposite party no.3 and her s
ervice has been regularized in the month of December, 1984. She was enrolled as a member of th
e Employees Provident Fund Trust since 01.05.1987 and was in continuous service till December,
1992. Since December 1992, she remained on ESI leave for a period of one year on medical grou
nd. On 09.12.1993, she submitted an application expressing her inability to work in her former
post, but she did not resume her duty.
The petitioner was allowed to retire on 28.2.1998 under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. T
hus, the petitioner has not worked w.e.f. December 1992 to November 1996.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even after excluding the period
of absence, she has completed 10 years of service but this aspect of the matter has not been c
onsidered by the authority while passing order dated 20.11.2010.
After going through the record, it transpires that the claim of the petitioner since b
een disputed by the opposite parties on the ground that she has not completed 10 years of regu
lar service, which is the requirement for getting pension under the Scheme.
Order has been passed by the E.P.F. authority on 20.11.2010 (Annexure-3) that there is
two years break in
past service, i.e., service below 10 years, hence she is not entitled for getting pension.
In view of the expressed provision making a workman entitled to get the benefit of Pro
vident Fund, the requirement is that the workman must have completed 10 years of regular servi
ce.
The petitioner has submitted that even though excluding the period of absence from dis
charging duty, the period will be 10 years, but the authorities have not scrutinized the issue
of the petitioner from this angle. Hence, the matter requires consideration.
Learned counsel appearing for Provident Fund, Mr. S.S. Mohanty has submitted that the
case may be remitted before the authority for passing an order to consider in the light of the
fact that as to whether even after excluding the period of absence, the petitioner has comple
ted 10 years of service or not.
In view thereof, the matter is remitted before the Regional Provident Fund Commissione
r, Bhubaneswar to look into the matter as to whether the petitioner even after excluding the p
eriod of absence as has been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties, th
e petitioner has completed 10 years of service or not.
It is expected that the EPF authority will take decision within four weeks from the da
te of receipt of copy of this order which shall be presented by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
S. N. Prasad, J.
3
3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to pension after completing 10 years of service excluding the period of absence from duty.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhubaneswar
Employees Provident Fund Trust
S.N. Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court