V.M.Sahai, Sabhajeet Yadav, JJ. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed as Head Assistant on 6.5.1973 in the office of Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., Naini Unit, Naini, Allahabad (in brief ITI). In the High School Certificate 18.4.1944 had been mentioned as his date of birth. He was promoted from time to time. The Personnel Manager, ITI issued a letter to the petitioner on 31.8.2002 that he would superannuate on the same day. The last pay drawn by the petitioner was Rs. 15800/- per month. The petitioner filled Form 10-D under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and submitted it in the office of Secretary, Provident Fund Trust-II, ITI on 13.9.2002 wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 18.8.1944 and his date of superannuation was mentioned as 31.8.2002. The Secretary, Provident Fund Trust forwarded all the papers of the petitioner on 1.12.2002 to the Assistant Commissioner in the office of Deputy Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Varanasi (in brief the Assistant Commissioner) stating therein that the petitioner's date of birth was 18.8.1944 and he had retired after attaining the age of 58 years, therefore, superannuation pension of the petitioner be released. The Assistant Commissioner returned the pension papers on 25.5.2003 stating that in case the petitioner wanted to take pension at reduced rate, then his consent be obtained as superannuation pension was not payable to him. The petitioner on 1.6.2003 made a representation to the General Manager, ITI for making payment of his pension. This letter was forwarded by the Personnel Manager, ITI to the Secretary, Provident Fund Trust for necessary action. On 22.7.2003 the Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of superannuation pension and returned Form D stating that superannuation pension could not be paid.
(2.) The petitioner again made a representation to Secretary, Provident Fund Trust, ITI that his date of birth was 18.8.1944 and he had completed 58 years of age on 17.8.2002 and had rightly been relieved after attaining the age of superannuation 58 years on 31.8.2002 at the end of the month. The Secretary again recommended the case of the petitioner for payment of superannuation pension by certifying that the date of birth of the petitioner was 18.8.1944 and the matter of the petitioner be re-considered. The Assistant Commissioner on' 8.9.2003 again rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of superannuation pension on the ground that the petitioner would complete the age of 58 years in March, 2009 and thereafter he would be entitled for superannuation pension and in case the petitioner wanted to take pension at reduced rate then he should submit Form 10-D again along with his consent. It was mentioned that no other document with regard to the date of birth was admissible. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 22.7.2003 and 8.9.2003. He has further prayed that the Assistant Commissioner, Provident Fund be directed to grant superannuation pension to the petitioner and pay the same along with arrears of pension with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
(3.) A counter affidavit on behalf of Assistant Commissioner has been filed wherein it has been stated that ITI had submitted Form 4 (FPF) showing that the petitioner was 23 years of age on 1.3.1974, therefore, the petitioner's date of birth had been worked out as 1.3.1951. It is further stated that an employee under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 was entitled for superannuation pension on attaining the age of 58 years. He could avail reduced pension after completing the age of 50 years by giving consent. According to the Assistant Commissioner the petitioner would complete 58 years of age in March 2009 and then only he would be entitled for superannuation pension. It had also been pointed out that the petitioner had joined Family Pension Scheme 1971 on 1.3.1974. It has further been stated that for correction of date of birth or age of members under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 a circular had been issued on 8.1.2002 which provided that the age factor was very vital in determining the eligibility for pension or quantum of pension entitlement. The change of date of birth/age should not in any way benefit the non-entitled member to get undue benefit, therefore, the authorities were to ensure the correct input of date of birth. An opportunity should be given to correct any clerical error or error apparent on facts that might have crept in the records of Employees Provident Fund Organization without the knowledge of its members. It provided the guidelines with regard to age/date of birth. The age/date of birth in Form 2(R) would be valid only in respect of the member who joined Employees Provident Fund Membership for the first time after 16.11.1995 and it could be relied upon with regard to age/date of birth of an employee. While dealing with the pension of members of the Provident Fund exempted establishments, the date of birth/age given in Provident Fund nomination and declaration form maintained by the Board of Trustees could be relied upon wherever the dispute arose on the date of birth/age given in Form -3 (PS)/ Form -3 (EPF). In the absence of age/date of birth given in Form 9/ F3 PS the date of birth as given by the member in Form 10-D and forwarded by the employer had to be relied. In such cases the verification of correctness of age/date of birth was to be ensured with reference to Form 5/ Form 4(PS) and Form 2. The claim of the petitioner had rightly been rejected as in Form 4 (FPF) with regard to Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 that had been submitted by the employer with the Assistant Commissioner showing the age 23 years at the time of entry into service. Therefore, no other document could be relied upon by the respondents with regard to date of birth.;