Allowed

Verander Kumar Nangia v. State

Rajasthan HC14 Nov 2017CW/1226/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner seeks payment of Contributory Provident Fund for period from 02.06.1967 to 31.03.1977 which was deducted but not paid after his absorption. Court allows petition directing respondents to ascertained details and pay the amount.

What did the court decide?

Directing Respondents No. 2 and 3 to ascertain details of CPF deposited and pay the amount for period 02.06.1967 to 31.03.1977 within specified period.

Verander Kumar Nangia Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUD~CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT '. JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1226 / 2000

¶3

Verander Kumar Nangia son of Shri Vishambhar Das Nangia, resident of 90-A, Gopal Bari, Jaipur.

¶4

Versus

¶5

(1) State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Agriculture Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶6

Federation Lal Nehru Marg,

¶7

;r -

¶8

(4) >hhppirector, State Insurance & Provident Fund D%p'artment, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 8"

¶9

(5) The Provident Fund Com.yiss,i,qr;le

¶10

For Petitioner(s)

¶11

For Respondent(s) :

¶12

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for seeking a direction against the respondents to pay the amount of Contributory Provident Fund for the period from 02.06.1967 to 31.03.1977 along with interest @ of 24% per annum. The petitioner also prayed for re-fixing his pension amount aftq grant of said amount of CPF.

¶13

The brief facts in nutshell are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Electrician in Jaipur Milk Supply Scheme, Jaipur on 02.06.1967. The petitioner was confirmed as Plant Mechanic vide order dated 24.09.1973.

¶14

The Government of Rajasthan vide its letter dated 22.11.1976 invited option for transfer and permanent absorption of persons, who were working in different Milk Schemes, including Jaipur Milk submitted his option to Cooperative Dairy ~edeation Ltd. The I-=@/ 3 &?State ~obment dB issued an order dated 30.03.1977-&dnsferring %.' i'=' *PP > +G2> the servlces of the petitione;'along with other employees to the Ltd. The petitioner was 2.11.1978. He was Sahakari Sangh Ltd. ixed in the pay scale of

¶15

of superannuation on post of Foreman. as paid the amount against insurance, un ave and gratuity for the period qrn he rendered services s. The petitioner was paid the amount of Contributory Provident Fund only for 21 years and 2 months and the amount of Contributory Provident Fund for the period from 02.06.1967 to 31.03.1977 was not paid.

¶16

The petitioner approached various authorities and requested that he was entitled for amount of Contributory Provident Fund from 02.06.1967 to 31.03.1977 as he had rendered the services

¶17

(3 of 7)

¶18

[UI-1226/2000]

¶19

with his erstwhile employer and there, his amount of CPF was deducted. The petitioner is also said to have served a legal notice and then approached this Court.

¶20

Mr. Alok Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the services rendered by the petitioner in Jaipur Dairy for 9 years and 10 months was,under the laipur Milk Supply Scheme, which was under the direct control of Agricultural Department, such, nonarbitrary

¶21

any valid justification, ot be withheld by the employer. Mr. Gar that the various correspondence, wh cated to different employer-respondents r had rendered the service for the dis of the respondent is owning the responsib ount for the service rendered by the pe ductions were made from his salary for Fund. Mr. Garg has further submitted that ident Fund, employee a -,a' .4& . well as employer, both +to rzontr~bute their share and after attaining the age of superannuation, the employee is required to receive the entire CPF amount.

¶22

There are five respondents in the instant petition i.e. (1) State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Agriculture Department, (2) Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd., (3) Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd., (4) Director, State Insurance

¶23

(4 of 7)

¶24

[CW-1226/2000]

¶25

and Provident Fund Department and (5) The Provident Fund Commissioner. The learned counsel for all the respondents have disowned the liability .to pay the amount in one way or another. The Agricultural Department has taken the stand that erstwhile services of the petitioner rendered in Jaipur Milk Supply Scheme were under the control of Agricultural Department of State of Rajasthan and as such, if any deduction had been made of the Contributory Agricultural

¶26

~heFPa5asthan Cooperative Dairy the sta%that services of the~etitioner Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sa such, laipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sah for payment of any amount if it is due. ''"%

¶27

Mr. Mr.Achintya earing for Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahak ied the claim of the petitioner and he submi e terms of absorption, the petitioner became thei ,1977 and prayer of the petitioner that as made by the petitioner, the sa rom Jaipur Dugdh $q=Ti Utpadak Sahakari San ~chtntya further submits that terms of absorption as placed on record, letter dated 22.11.1976 (Annex.3), provides in Clause-5(a) that whatever amount was deducted prior to absorption of the petitioner, the same was required to be transferred in the account of the petitioner and he was to withdraw the same but the liability was not transferred to. Jaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh.

¶28

(5 of 7)

¶29

m-1226/2000]

¶30

The stand of the State Insurance & Provident Fund Department has been that they do not deal with the employees who were working in Dairy Department and they are concerned with only few departments of the State Government. Mr. S.K. Yadav, Adv. submits that they never received any amount from the employer and as such, it is not the duty of the State Insurance & Provident Fund Department to give any amount to the petitioner. i aN Hpt? -., The stand o(,.ih&Pgoldent Fund Commssioner has been that s.p qv -b r pk the petitionehqwas a government employee fort the period he &/ ,k \y d, renderedhig services from 02.06.1967 to 31.03.k&~ and as "c, # i' 6; - ". /,Q such, % provisions of mlo~ees Provident Fund and Misc. nment services and r never approached learned counsel for the # d$ record.

¶31

deductions have been I, he has deposited his Bt Fund, the claim of the petitioner cannot be denied. The p z--qAr while working with his \ dT-1 previous employer was abs9 per Scheme of the Government with Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. It was the duty of the Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. to seek all the information and complete details and money being transferred for making payment to the employee concerned. The petitioner once has been absorbed and employed till his superannuation with the respondent-Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy

¶32

Federation Ltd. and later on, transferred to Jaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh, the respondent No.2, cannot disown the liability of making payment. It is internal arrangement between the previous employer and the new employer i.e. Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. as how the scheme is to be implemented. Once, the employee has opted and absorbed, and continued in service, his contribution which has been deducted bii $2 $ and deposited, anot!i@hetalned-lb@~?of 'a a ~j <fq N*, the employer. The c. Y+ n ? Court finds that-For the purpose of gratuity, &en-the entire 31 \ f* fA. 1.2" R years of ~ewice is taken into account i.e. from 02.06.5367 ,.+ .I till his ah '3, +', .i.*-.superannuation in 1998, no departure can be made in ;a&hlating the eriod of total service - ~ ~ I;,%%%? I for the purpose of making

¶33

payment towards C

¶34

The Court fin Government Annex.3 also provided in Claus ount which has been deducted, the same am ansferred in the account of the employee and in r complete 55 years of service and does no such eventuality, the amount was to the petitioner has uninterruptedly continue s services from the initial yTFf;:f date of appointment $ bbsorbed, the respondents cannot disown the liability to pay the amount, which has been deducted from 02.06.1967 to 3103.1977.

¶35

The stand of the respondents which has been taken is quite strange. All the respondents by filing separate reply, in one way or another, are passing on the buck to each other and the claim of the petitioner is also being defected on technical grounds like not

¶36

making Animal Husbandry Department as a party in the writ petition, the Court finds that the service benefits which accrue to government servantIan employee, cannot be withheld by the employer on spacious grounds.

¶37

The writ petition deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed. The respondents No.2 & 3 are directed to seek necessary information and the details of amount being deposited by the - 4 % kL bl -Er rri- P#? p petitioner with his- p{q.foos employeagdafter collecting the . . h2;% pGI same, the beInellts are required to be given to the petltoner. The < L'~~~L period from02.06.1967 to 31.03.1977 for the purpose oFpayment (aoz. 3 c 1 ., b f, " ;,-% 3 of Con%utory Provident Fund will be considered for al~~uroses

¶38

to - the petitioner within a

Verander Kumar Nangia v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Verander Kumar Nangia v. State

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

Case details

Similar cases

Jagadeesh Narayan and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Arun Shah Vs Smt Kamla Rani

Chairman a v v N L and Ors. Vs Vishal Singh and Ors.

Ramji Lal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Radha Sidana Vs State Education Department Ors.

Jagram Gurjar Vs State Education Department Ors.