Allowed

Smt Kanwar Devi v. Regional Commissioner and Ors.

Rajasthan HC21 Nov 2008CW/6019/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court allowed the petitioner's claim for family pension payable by the Union of India from the date of her husband's death, noting the Provident Fund Corporation scheme is distinct from government pension.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent Union of India to pay family pension from date of husband's death and continue till survival, including arrears with interest at 9% per annum.

Smt Kanwar Devi Vs Regional Commissioner… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6019/1997
Smt. Kanwar Devi vs. The Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner & Ors.

¶2

Date of order : 21/11/2008.

¶3

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

¶4

Shri A.L. Verma for the petitioner.
Shri N.C. Jain for the respondent no.1.
Shri S.S. Hasan for respondent nos. 2 to 4.
Shri Rizwan Ahmed for respondent no.5.

¶5

******

¶6

REPORTABLE

¶7

This writ petition has been filed with the

¶8

prayer that Regional Provident Fund

¶9

Commissioner be directed to grant and pay

¶10

family pension to the petitioner under the
provisions of Employees Provident Fund and

¶11

other Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 from

¶12

the date of death of her husband and be

¶13

further directed to pay family pension to the
petitioner as her husband was an ex-army man
and retired from the services of the Army on
10.1.1971 having rendered services from

¶14

10.1.1956 till then.

¶15

Controversy raised in this writ petition

¶16

is squarely covered by the judgement of Kerala

¶17

High Cout in T.A. Prabhavarthy vs. UOI, O.P.

¶18

No.6920/1989 decided on 21.3.1994. In fact,

¶19

this writ petition was filed in the year 1988.
The respondents have all along been contending
that the aforesaid judgment of Kerala High

¶20

Court was challenged before the Supreme Court.
This matter was listed on number of dates and

¶21

was adjourned enabling the respondents to show
as to what was the outcome of the SLP filed by
them before the Supreme Court. But till date,
the respondents are not in a position to show
that the aforesaid judgement has been
reversed.

¶22

The Kerala High Court in the aforesaid
judgement on consideration of the law on the
subject held that the provident fund
authorities took a definite stand that the

¶23

provident fund organisation is a statutory
organisation and the family pension scheme
framed under the Employees' Provident Fund and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is on

¶24

contributory basis for which the employee
during his employment is to contribute

¶25

regularly each month at a fixed rate out of
his wages earned and that in case of death of
the employee during service, the provident
fund organisation is under obligation to pay
to his survivors family pension each month out
of those deposits made from the wages of the
members, while he was alive and it has no
bearing with the Consolidated Funds of India.
Even before this Court, the stand that has
been taken by the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner is that the petitioner is
entitled to receive pension from Army as well
as from Provident Fund Commissioner and a

¶26

letter to this effect was sent to the

¶27

Controller of Defence, Allahabad. It is
further contended by the Provident Fund

¶28

Commissioner that the pension is paid to the
petitioner in lieu of family pension

¶29

contribution paid by her husband during his
life time. The amount of family pension till

¶30

date has been lying in the bank account of the
petitioner and the same is continued to be

¶31

credited in future also. However, the Union of
India has been resisting the claim of the

¶32

petitioner to receive the family pension which
in view of the aforesaid discussion is wholly
unjustified, because the family pension scheme
of the Provident Fund Commissioner stands on

¶33

an entirely different footing than the family
pension paid by the Government of India.

¶34

In the result, the writ petition is

¶35

allowed. The respondent Union of India is
directed to pay to the petitioner family

¶36

pension from the date of death of her husband

¶37

and continue to pay till she survives.

¶38

Petitioner shall also be entitled to arrears

¶39

of the family pension together with interest @
9% per annum. It is however made clear that

¶40

the petitioner would also be entitled to

¶41

payment of family pension from the Provident
Fund Commissioner in addition to the family

¶42

pension which she would be receiving from

¶43

Union of India in lieu of services rendered by

¶44

her late husband in the Indian Army from

¶45

10.1.1956 to 10.1.1971.

¶46

Compliance of the judgement be made within

¶47

three months from the date its copy is

¶48

produced before the respondents.

¶49

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.

¶50

RS/

Smt Kanwar Devi v. Regional Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Kanwar Devi v. Regional Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gauri Shankar Sharma Vs State

Smt Rani Mathur Vs R I C C O and Anr.

Surajmal Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Laxman Singh Vs U.O.I

Vishnu Avatar Saxean Vs State

Ex-Pnr.Raghubir Mali Vs UOI and Ors.